Court of Arbitration and other ideas

[SamFlash 0]

Originally posted by: Jasoncw You know, everyone except us three has stopped posting in this thread.  If you don't start responding to other peoples ideas, I'm going to stop posting here, and this thread will probably die off pretty quick, and nothing you wanted from this thread will happen.  If you do start responding to other peoples ideas, then I'll respond back to them, and more people probably would too, and we can have a nice discussion.

I don't think you're going to respond to anything though.  I think I might have said this before, but I think this is like in chess, when someone only has their King left, and they keep on running around the board waiting for the other player to call a draw or quit.quote>

 

Maybe there are not a lot of others posting at the moment but I'm willing to bet that a number of members are reading this daily, waiting for the next response.  And now a couple of the Moderators have added their thoughts.  This is actually an interesting discussion about something with more relevance than a number of topics posted in this forum. 

Voar Tok - you make a good point about about possible flame wars.  I like the idea of someone's stupid and inane comments being left for all to see and held up for public ridicule.  It's an easy way to let everyone else know who the idiots are and might be an incentive for some to grow up a little and think about what they're saying before posting it for all to see.

Hordijk - You brought up an interesting point about the differences among the members.  Because we have members from all around the world with different cultures, ages, backgrounds and experience, not to mention different language skills, the  discussions about many of the issues that would come before some "court or panel" could be endless.   What is wrong, rude or disrespectful ato one person might be perfectly acceptable to another in a different apart of the world.                        

[SamFlash 0]

Originally posted by: Jasoncw You know, everyone except us three has stopped posting in this thread.  If you don't start responding to other peoples ideas, I'm going to stop posting here, and this thread will probably die off pretty quick, and nothing you wanted from this thread will happen.  If you do start responding to other peoples ideas, then I'll respond back to them, and more people probably would too, and we can have a nice discussion.

I don't think you're going to respond to anything though.  I think I might have said this before, but I think this is like in chess, when someone only has their King left, and they keep on running around the board waiting for the other player to call a draw or quit.quote>

 

Maybe there are not a lot of others posting at the moment but I'm willing to bet that a number of members are reading this daily, waiting for the next response.  And now a couple of the Moderators have added their thoughts.  This is actually an interesting discussion about something with more relevance than a number of topics posted in this forum. 

Voar Tok - you make a good point about about possible flame wars.  I like the idea of someone's stupid and inane comments being left for all to see and held up for public ridicule.  It's an easy way to let everyone else know who the idiots are and might be an incentive for some to grow up a little and think about what they're saying before posting it for all to see.

Hordijk - You brought up an interesting point about the differences among the members.  Because we have members from all around the world with different cultures, ages, backgrounds and experience, not to mention different language skills, the  discussions about many of the issues that would come before some "court or panel" could be endless.   What is wrong, rude or disrespectful ato one person might be perfectly acceptable to another in a different apart of the world.                        

[mtbrocket 2]

If a topic creator has the power to delete comments within a topic a flame war would not occur as they simply would be deleted by the topic creator. It does not infringe on some one's “right” to speak because there is nothing to stop anyone from creating a new topic. There are a number of members who come to topics just to argue with the topic creator’s. Sure there could be topic creator abuses but it is confined within the topic. If members found the topic creator too abusive they would just leave until there was no one but the topic creator left at that point the topic dies. So there is an incentive for the topic creator to not abuse their power. Right now the responders hold all the cards because of a matter of numbers. There can only be one topic creator but a large amount of potential responders.

 

Hordijk, SamFlash, your idea about different cultures is a good one and I did think about that, after all friends can be rude to each other without problems. It can go even deeper as politeness and rudeness are both so subjective that they are not true opposites. You can politely tell someone to take a long walk off a short pier. The problem is already here. For the most part it is raw numbers that determines what is rude in Simtropolis. Members with unpopular ideas are considered rude and members with popular ideas or are popular for other unrelated reasons are not rude. The moderators are very lenient on the matter because of the reasons I have already brought up in previous updates. They only determine the boundaries. Anything inside the boundaries is considered fair game. Also they are just as much within real world cultures as the rest of us.

On second thought, in relation to Simtropolis outside cultures maybe irrelevant. Once inside Simtropolis it is up to the members and staff to create a unique culture just for the purposes of interacting with each other within Simtropolis.

 

I think at this point it is fair to say that from the normal free flowing of ideas (about time) we have moved into a related but new topic; that being what are the spheres of responsibility and control within a topic. This would be for both the topic creator and the responders.

-Dan

[mtbrocket 2]

If a topic creator has the power to delete comments within a topic a flame war would not occur as they simply would be deleted by the topic creator. It does not infringe on some one's “right” to speak because there is nothing to stop anyone from creating a new topic. There are a number of members who come to topics just to argue with the topic creator’s. Sure there could be topic creator abuses but it is confined within the topic. If members found the topic creator too abusive they would just leave until there was no one but the topic creator left at that point the topic dies. So there is an incentive for the topic creator to not abuse their power. Right now the responders hold all the cards because of a matter of numbers. There can only be one topic creator but a large amount of potential responders.

 

Hordijk, SamFlash, your idea about different cultures is a good one and I did think about that, after all friends can be rude to each other without problems. It can go even deeper as politeness and rudeness are both so subjective that they are not true opposites. You can politely tell someone to take a long walk off a short pier. The problem is already here. For the most part it is raw numbers that determines what is rude in Simtropolis. Members with unpopular ideas are considered rude and members with popular ideas or are popular for other unrelated reasons are not rude. The moderators are very lenient on the matter because of the reasons I have already brought up in previous updates. They only determine the boundaries. Anything inside the boundaries is considered fair game. Also they are just as much within real world cultures as the rest of us.

On second thought, in relation to Simtropolis outside cultures maybe irrelevant. Once inside Simtropolis it is up to the members and staff to create a unique culture just for the purposes of interacting with each other within Simtropolis.

 

I think at this point it is fair to say that from the normal free flowing of ideas (about time) we have moved into a related but new topic; that being what are the spheres of responsibility and control within a topic. This would be for both the topic creator and the responders.

-Dan

[Jasoncw 11,940]

"If a topic creator has the power to delete comments within a topic a flame war would not occur as they simply would be deleted by the topic creator."

That's true, but the people involved still wouldn't like each other.  I think what's important is that the individual member is happy, not what the discussion looks like in the end (easily read and seemingly friendly).

"If members found the topic creator too abusive they would just leave until there was no one but the topic creator left at that point the topic dies. So there is an incentive for the topic creator to not abuse their power."

I think that promotes more people leaving discussions, while the current system encourages people to stay in discussions.

"Members with unpopular ideas are considered rude and members with popular ideas or are popular for other unrelated reasons are not rude."

I don't think that's true at all, and I'm not sure why you think that.  Members with unpopular ideas are considered wrong, and members with popular ideas are right.  Members rudley say thing that people agree with, and members politely say things that people disagree with.

[Jasoncw 11,940]

"If a topic creator has the power to delete comments within a topic a flame war would not occur as they simply would be deleted by the topic creator."

That's true, but the people involved still wouldn't like each other.  I think what's important is that the individual member is happy, not what the discussion looks like in the end (easily read and seemingly friendly).

"If members found the topic creator too abusive they would just leave until there was no one but the topic creator left at that point the topic dies. So there is an incentive for the topic creator to not abuse their power."

I think that promotes more people leaving discussions, while the current system encourages people to stay in discussions.

"Members with unpopular ideas are considered rude and members with popular ideas or are popular for other unrelated reasons are not rude."

I don't think that's true at all, and I'm not sure why you think that.  Members with unpopular ideas are considered wrong, and members with popular ideas are right.  Members rudley say thing that people agree with, and members politely say things that people disagree with.

[SamFlash 0]

Originally posted by: Jasoncw 

"Members with unpopular ideas are considered rude and members with popular ideas or are popular for other unrelated reasons are not rude."

I don't think that's true at all, and I'm not sure why you think that.  Members with unpopular ideas are considered wrong, and members with popular ideas are right.  Members rudley say thing that people agree with, and members politely say things that people disagree with.

quote>

 

Actually he does make a good point about popularity and acceptance in the forums.  There are a couple of cliques here and if your in one you can pretty much do no wrong but if your not, you have problems.  One example, without naming names, would be some members who's posts are frequently edited by moderators to keep them acceptable while other members are simply banned.  I'm not privy to what goes on behind the scenes but from the standpoint of an outside observer it would appear to be favoritism. 

[SamFlash 0]

Originally posted by: Jasoncw 

"Members with unpopular ideas are considered rude and members with popular ideas or are popular for other unrelated reasons are not rude."

I don't think that's true at all, and I'm not sure why you think that.  Members with unpopular ideas are considered wrong, and members with popular ideas are right.  Members rudley say thing that people agree with, and members politely say things that people disagree with.

quote>

 

Actually he does make a good point about popularity and acceptance in the forums.  There are a couple of cliques here and if your in one you can pretty much do no wrong but if your not, you have problems.  One example, without naming names, would be some members who's posts are frequently edited by moderators to keep them acceptable while other members are simply banned.  I'm not privy to what goes on behind the scenes but from the standpoint of an outside observer it would appear to be favoritism. 

[Jasoncw 11,940]

what happens when someone gets banned from Simtropolis?   Alot of sites replace thier username or member label with "banned" or something like that, but off the top of my head I don't remember seeing that here.

I'm reading what you said and what mtbrocket said as two different things, lol (to me, mtbrocket was talking about manners).  I agree with what you said, but I think it's less of a problem than you do.  I can think of a few reasons why those things happen, but I don't think they're that important.  I think what could at least solve the editing vs banned problem is keeping and submiting records (sorry to keep saying the same thing, lol).  It would be really easy for whoever was reading the record to see that one person was banned and the other was edited for the same thing, and then it could be addressed.  Looking back, I think this is a little like the peer pressure mtbrocket was talking about earlier.  I don't know what to do about people who don't get moderated at all other than to get more impartial moderators, but I don't think there are very many members who are doing things they shouldn't be, so an admin could probably send a few pms to straighten out those members, without a big moderator shakeup.

"I think at this point it is fair to say that from the normal free flowing of ideas (about time) we have moved into a related but new topic; that being what are the spheres of responsibility and control within a topic. This would be for both the topic creator and the responders."

mtb, you're happy about the free flow of ideas and the evolution of the discussion, but then it feels like in the second part your putting a limit on what we're supposed to talk about.  The free flow of the discussion is where me and samflash just went, but we aren't talking about the spheres of control within a thread, so we're off topic.  How about the conversation just goes where it goes?

[Jasoncw 11,940]

what happens when someone gets banned from Simtropolis?   Alot of sites replace thier username or member label with "banned" or something like that, but off the top of my head I don't remember seeing that here.

I'm reading what you said and what mtbrocket said as two different things, lol (to me, mtbrocket was talking about manners).  I agree with what you said, but I think it's less of a problem than you do.  I can think of a few reasons why those things happen, but I don't think they're that important.  I think what could at least solve the editing vs banned problem is keeping and submiting records (sorry to keep saying the same thing, lol).  It would be really easy for whoever was reading the record to see that one person was banned and the other was edited for the same thing, and then it could be addressed.  Looking back, I think this is a little like the peer pressure mtbrocket was talking about earlier.  I don't know what to do about people who don't get moderated at all other than to get more impartial moderators, but I don't think there are very many members who are doing things they shouldn't be, so an admin could probably send a few pms to straighten out those members, without a big moderator shakeup.

"I think at this point it is fair to say that from the normal free flowing of ideas (about time) we have moved into a related but new topic; that being what are the spheres of responsibility and control within a topic. This would be for both the topic creator and the responders."

mtb, you're happy about the free flow of ideas and the evolution of the discussion, but then it feels like in the second part your putting a limit on what we're supposed to talk about.  The free flow of the discussion is where me and samflash just went, but we aren't talking about the spheres of control within a thread, so we're off topic.  How about the conversation just goes where it goes?

[sloppet 3]

what happens when someone gets banned from Simtropolis? quote>

he get's wiped off by the bunnies

[sloppet 3]

what happens when someone gets banned from Simtropolis? quote>

he get's wiped off by the bunnies

[SamFlash 0]

Originally posted by: Jasoncw

mtb, you're happy about the free flow of ideas and the evolution of the discussion, but then it feels like in the second part your putting a limit on what we're supposed to talk about.  The free flow of the discussion is where me and samflash just went, but we aren't talking about the spheres of control within a thread, so we're off topic.  How about the conversation just goes where it goes?

quote>

 

We're not holding this discussion to solve some ongoing problem which would dictate our staying "on topic" but this is more like a free-flowing discussion of related ideas.  Most discussions in real life never go in a perfectly straight line but tend to wander in a general direction.  Side issues come up and are discussed in light of the original discussion.  If we were all sitting together in the Moose Factory drinking our beverage of choice, there would be side discussions going on between 2 or 3 members while the group as a whole would be on the main discussion topic.  A good discussion on almost any topic usually raises more questions than it answers.  

Off-topic:

Jason -  the link in your signature returns an error message.

Sloppet - you'd better keep those bunnies under control.  They've been running amok much to long.

[SamFlash 0]

Originally posted by: Jasoncw

mtb, you're happy about the free flow of ideas and the evolution of the discussion, but then it feels like in the second part your putting a limit on what we're supposed to talk about.  The free flow of the discussion is where me and samflash just went, but we aren't talking about the spheres of control within a thread, so we're off topic.  How about the conversation just goes where it goes?

quote>

 

We're not holding this discussion to solve some ongoing problem which would dictate our staying "on topic" but this is more like a free-flowing discussion of related ideas.  Most discussions in real life never go in a perfectly straight line but tend to wander in a general direction.  Side issues come up and are discussed in light of the original discussion.  If we were all sitting together in the Moose Factory drinking our beverage of choice, there would be side discussions going on between 2 or 3 members while the group as a whole would be on the main discussion topic.  A good discussion on almost any topic usually raises more questions than it answers.  

Off-topic:

Jason -  the link in your signature returns an error message.

Sloppet - you'd better keep those bunnies under control.  They've been running amok much to long.

[Jasoncw 11,940]

That's exactly what I think, which is why I said what I said.

Yea, my signature worked before, but then I saw all the new fields that needed filling out in my profile, and after I edited my profile I couldn't get it to work again. I've tried giving it normal html, and the special tags, but each time it keeps on rewriting it back into html, and the html it spits out is wrong. It puts a ">" in where it shouldn't belong. Should I just take the link out? I think everyone who would want to read it has probably already found it.

[Jasoncw 11,940]

That's exactly what I think, which is why I said what I said.

Yea, my signature worked before, but then I saw all the new fields that needed filling out in my profile, and after I edited my profile I couldn't get it to work again. I've tried giving it normal html, and the special tags, but each time it keeps on rewriting it back into html, and the html it spits out is wrong. It puts a ">" in where it shouldn't belong. Should I just take the link out? I think everyone who would want to read it has probably already found it.

[mtbrocket 2]

You bring up a good point, JasonCW; Members with unpopular ideas are considered wrong, and members with popular ideas are considered right without evaluation of merit. You sound like me, as this is one of the issues that I am trying to reduce its effects. I do think it goes beyond that to open hostility but I think we will just have to disagree on this point.

SamFlash is right with his analogy but I see it more like a conference than a bar where the topic of the conference is set up in advance and everyone who attends knows what it is about. One of the responsibilities of a topic creator is to keep the conversation on topic. This does not mean it has to be laser sharp and it can and should wander as a topic is looked at from different points of view and new ideas are added. Never the less a creator should create some boundaries. Why have specific forums if someone is going to talk about the Mets or signatures (ahem) in the Simtropolis related forum? That is where PMs come into play, to send those "oh by the way your fly is" messages. I have noticed the sharpness of focus is different depending on what forum you visit. The CJ forums and BAT/MOD/etc forums are much more focused than other forums. Even with the sharper focus the CJs are very fun and light hearted while the building forums are all business.

However the creator should have more power to change the topic than a responder. One of the responsibilities of the responder is to be aware of the topic and allow the creator to control their own creation.

I think that spheres of responsibility and control are very much within this topic’s domain as the whole topic is about how to influence member behavior and most member-to-member interaction occurs within topics. I even changed the name of the topic, added rules and added definitions to reflect a more expansive scope.

Like I posted earlier, with things as they are, responders have much more control over a topic than a creator, and that is why I think the pendulum has to swing the other way for a bit. After all a creator must keep the topic entertaining in some way or lose the audience and are out numbered so they are already at a disadvantage.

-Dan

[mtbrocket 2]

You bring up a good point, JasonCW; Members with unpopular ideas are considered wrong, and members with popular ideas are considered right without evaluation of merit. You sound like me, as this is one of the issues that I am trying to reduce its effects. I do think it goes beyond that to open hostility but I think we will just have to disagree on this point.

SamFlash is right with his analogy but I see it more like a conference than a bar where the topic of the conference is set up in advance and everyone who attends knows what it is about. One of the responsibilities of a topic creator is to keep the conversation on topic. This does not mean it has to be laser sharp and it can and should wander as a topic is looked at from different points of view and new ideas are added. Never the less a creator should create some boundaries. Why have specific forums if someone is going to talk about the Mets or signatures (ahem) in the Simtropolis related forum? That is where PMs come into play, to send those "oh by the way your fly is" messages. I have noticed the sharpness of focus is different depending on what forum you visit. The CJ forums and BAT/MOD/etc forums are much more focused than other forums. Even with the sharper focus the CJs are very fun and light hearted while the building forums are all business.

However the creator should have more power to change the topic than a responder. One of the responsibilities of the responder is to be aware of the topic and allow the creator to control their own creation.

I think that spheres of responsibility and control are very much within this topic’s domain as the whole topic is about how to influence member behavior and most member-to-member interaction occurs within topics. I even changed the name of the topic, added rules and added definitions to reflect a more expansive scope.

Like I posted earlier, with things as they are, responders have much more control over a topic than a creator, and that is why I think the pendulum has to swing the other way for a bit. After all a creator must keep the topic entertaining in some way or lose the audience and are out numbered so they are already at a disadvantage.

-Dan

[sloppet 3]

Members with unpopular ideas are considered wrongquote>

is someone talking about me?

SamFlash: OK, I'll keep them controled!

[sloppet 3]

Members with unpopular ideas are considered wrongquote>

is someone talking about me?

SamFlash: OK, I'll keep them controled!

[Jasoncw 11,940]

You added on the "without evaluation of merit part."   I think that changes the meaning to something I don't agree with.  But yea, we'll have to agree to disagree.

But why is it wrong that popular ideas (popular meaning "most people think is right") being considered right, wrong?

I think the only way to get rid of the negative effects (I don't see what they are, other than a few shy people not speaking up) would be not allowing all of the majority to say what they want to say, and I don't think someone should be shut up just for being part of the majority.  I don't think it's right for someone not to be allowed to speak just because they're part of the minority either, but those people have the choice to post, they're just not because they're shy, or sensitive, or whatever.  Unless I'm missing something.

It's like a conference because people know what the topic is, but in every other way (especially the social aspects, the most important) it's more like a bar.

I don't think the author of the thread has any responsibility in it.  The people involved in the discussion have equal responsibility of keeping it working, and being involved in the discussion (at least for the first post) the author has some responsiblity.

[Jasoncw 11,940]

You added on the "without evaluation of merit part."   I think that changes the meaning to something I don't agree with.  But yea, we'll have to agree to disagree.

But why is it wrong that popular ideas (popular meaning "most people think is right") being considered right, wrong?

I think the only way to get rid of the negative effects (I don't see what they are, other than a few shy people not speaking up) would be not allowing all of the majority to say what they want to say, and I don't think someone should be shut up just for being part of the majority.  I don't think it's right for someone not to be allowed to speak just because they're part of the minority either, but those people have the choice to post, they're just not because they're shy, or sensitive, or whatever.  Unless I'm missing something.

It's like a conference because people know what the topic is, but in every other way (especially the social aspects, the most important) it's more like a bar.

I don't think the author of the thread has any responsibility in it.  The people involved in the discussion have equal responsibility of keeping it working, and being involved in the discussion (at least for the first post) the author has some responsiblity.

[Dionisos 0]

I have to admit, I am one of those quiet, lurking people that have been silently tracking this discussion and awaiting the next post; and I have finally made up my mind to speak up as there doesn't seem to be many people doing this and contributing to this crucible of individual and public emphases, I have to say I  agree with what peopel have said about fee speech and not the extra power ot the authors, it constricts and can deform the "free flow of speech" of the average poster and give an onlooker a ersatz image of people's thoughts!

[Dionisos 0]

I have to admit, I am one of those quiet, lurking people that have been silently tracking this discussion and awaiting the next post; and I have finally made up my mind to speak up as there doesn't seem to be many people doing this and contributing to this crucible of individual and public emphases, I have to say I  agree with what peopel have said about fee speech and not the extra power ot the authors, it constricts and can deform the "free flow of speech" of the average poster and give an onlooker a ersatz image of people's thoughts!

[Micah 16]

Well, this free speech is never going to happen on this website. It will eventually ruin the website if free speech is accepted. Did any of you guys consider that maybe Simtropolis doesn't want to be like every other website? Simtropolis wants to be unique and it will remain unique. Simtropolis wants to remain a place where new members say the word 'friendly' when they start talking about Simtropolis. This thread is full of repetition... people keep saying the same things over and over, and yet, not a single thing has changed on the website. The only place that they give a little bit of passiveness (if that is a word) is in the chat-room... but even there, it is still monitored closely.

[Micah 16]

Well, this free speech is never going to happen on this website. It will eventually ruin the website if free speech is accepted. Did any of you guys consider that maybe Simtropolis doesn't want to be like every other website? Simtropolis wants to be unique and it will remain unique. Simtropolis wants to remain a place where new members say the word 'friendly' when they start talking about Simtropolis. This thread is full of repetition... people keep saying the same things over and over, and yet, not a single thing has changed on the website. The only place that they give a little bit of passiveness (if that is a word) is in the chat-room... but even there, it is still monitored closely.

[Dionisos 0]

If I know what you are saying, Micah I don't mean complete free speech, as I agree Simtropolis will just become another cesspool of ignorance like most forums do*; I'm just trying to say that if the author is given the power to delete posts as they like, it would change what the forum will create, the author and the people in the forum posting and watching should be tolerant of other people's ideas, views, etc. But there should be some rules that members should abide by, like tehre already are, such as insults, etc etc. But to destroy other people's words is just ridiculous, what would the gains be? To make the forum look nicer? Or to just get rid of "fool"s' comments to not influence the onlooker on what to think? That throws the freedom of speech thing out of the occasion. In my opinion, there should be no restrictions on what people can say, but more restrictions on how they get their point across, such as: swearing, bullying**, and general bad manners etc.

*Speaking generally

**Such as To treat in an overbearing or intimidating manner or to make ones way agressively.

Regards,

Dionisos

P.S. Micah, Please correct me if this is not what you are saying, and I apologise and agree with you that yes, there is a lot of repetition in this chatroom!

[Dionisos 0]

If I know what you are saying, Micah I don't mean complete free speech, as I agree Simtropolis will just become another cesspool of ignorance like most forums do*; I'm just trying to say that if the author is given the power to delete posts as they like, it would change what the forum will create, the author and the people in the forum posting and watching should be tolerant of other people's ideas, views, etc. But there should be some rules that members should abide by, like tehre already are, such as insults, etc etc. But to destroy other people's words is just ridiculous, what would the gains be? To make the forum look nicer? Or to just get rid of "fool"s' comments to not influence the onlooker on what to think? That throws the freedom of speech thing out of the occasion. In my opinion, there should be no restrictions on what people can say, but more restrictions on how they get their point across, such as: swearing, bullying**, and general bad manners etc.

*Speaking generally

**Such as To treat in an overbearing or intimidating manner or to make ones way agressively.

Regards,

Dionisos

P.S. Micah, Please correct me if this is not what you are saying, and I apologise and agree with you that yes, there is a lot of repetition in this chatroom!

[mtbrocket 2]

Micah brings up a good point about repetition. That is what the author has against him; the repetition of responders saying the same thing over and over again.

What about the "free speech" of the author? Should not the author have some say over the topic of his topic? Should not a member be free to make a topic without being overwhelmed by negative or repetitive responses? I think it is hardly the case that a member has their "freedom to speak" restricted by limitations placed on the focus of a topic. How would you like it if your topic was filled with replies that were about something other than your topic?

I am off for a week. It be vacation time as they say.

-Dan

[mtbrocket 2]

Micah brings up a good point about repetition. That is what the author has against him; the repetition of responders saying the same thing over and over again.

What about the "free speech" of the author? Should not the author have some say over the topic of his topic? Should not a member be free to make a topic without being overwhelmed by negative or repetitive responses? I think it is hardly the case that a member has their "freedom to speak" restricted by limitations placed on the focus of a topic. How would you like it if your topic was filled with replies that were about something other than your topic?

I am off for a week. It be vacation time as they say.

-Dan