Updated Board Rules - Please Read

What an odd request.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Not remotely. Clearly the rule has been motivated by alleged abuse. If you are attempting to justify it's introduction then please set out how often it is being misused, and how often per user (you can even used fake right now names if you must).

What a parliamentary body consults on proposed legislation, you don't think they consider the reasons why it is required before, usually by way of reports and statistics?

A handful of moderators isn't wordforge.net

Most of the board would agree with the sentiment of you being a tool as well.

Define what a "tool" in this context means first.

There is a site called Google that can help you figure it out on your own.

I wasn't the one who brought it up.

Never hurts to learn new things on one's own.

Neither was I, I only clarified that not only the moderators think that.

It is an odd request because a rule was put in place, and the reason as to why was given. You seem to be under the impression, given your post, that this is Parliament, and the board owners are your elected representatives. Let me make the point clear that this is not the case. Outside of reasonable expectation of understanding, and explanation, you are owed nothing beyond that. You're a part of the community, and it is important that everyone communicates clearly, but there is no reasonable expectation for you to see the metrics behind a simple rule clarification like this one. So I found your request odd.

To put it another way: It would be like walking into a restaurant and demanding that the manager show you the shipping requisitions so you can calculate how much you think you should be paying them for a hamburger. There is no reasonable expectation that your demand deserves to be met.

It's not an odd request.

It's only odd if you don't have data to back yourself up.

Which apparently you don't. So just admit it.

It is an odd request.

With no understanding of how the moderating system of Xenforo works, both yourself and El Chup have built up this idea that the system keeps logs of data that record usernames along with their history of using the report function, and there are not. I keep notes on which members abuse the report function, and how often they do so over a period of time. You will not see that information, as you have no reasonable right to it. End of story.

Fine. How many at Wordforge believe this aside from you and the moderators.?

are you trolling for flames?

Asking for the basis for a conclusion is not an odd request. Asking a bar owner to turn off the ball game and put on My Little Pony is an odd request.

No one is saying that. You're just deflecting now. Blaming the software. Some people think you're smarter than that.

I'm not one of them.

Oh. So you decided. Based on your "notes".

You know who else kept lists of people he didn't like?

Hitler.

And Dayton.

First they came for the Report function abusers, and no one spoke up because we weren't the abusers.
Then they came for the political snipers, and no one spoke up because we weren't political snipers.
Then they came for the spammers, and no one spoke up because we weren't spammers.
Then they came for the lawyers, and no one seemed to give a shit, really. I'm pretty sure there was clapping.
Then they came for the politicians, and I'm pretty sure some of the people helped load the train cars.
Then they came for the bankers, and no one spoke up because bankers. I mean, people have mortgages, you know?
Then they came for Matt Damon, because he was Matt Damon.
Then they came for Brian Williams, and no one spoke up, even though they were right there in the middle of it all.
Then they came for me, and no one spoke up, because I kept notes.

Has it ever occurred to you John that by refusing to be specific about what constitutes warnable or bannable conduct, you invite for obvious reasons the charge that you keep things vague so you can use the rules against people you do not like at will?

Did you know that if you read a run-on sentence in the voice of John Moschitta Jr it makes everything a lot more hilarious at least on a personal level but if you don't know who he is have you considered reading it in the voice of Speed Racer's dad which may make a better reference for those who may not be of the latest generation and not understand that Moschitta is the fast talking Micro Machines commercial guy ah?! Oh!

Now it's my turn to ask a question: Why are the three strongest advocates against this rule update Dayton, El Chup, and Faceman? Granted, there could be others who may not like the update, but you three are stridently against it, and are demanding information to which you should not be privy. Why?

I love this thread.

I think John has jumped the Lisa. thus completing his transformation into Neroon.

Does this mean we're not going to the Prom together?

You should be so lucky, John!

No, the reason hasn't been given. We've just been told some vague shite about abuses. What abuses though? I'm calling bullshit because you can neither produce any figures or evidence, nor explain exactly what has instigated the rule beyond a couple of old posts being reported by Dayton. You're just going down the whole "trust us, because we know" line. But I don't trust every single mod, nor do I trust the non mods who have the ear of them despite having no credible reason to do so. So in the absence of trust I would prefer proof that the rule is justified and not just an excuse to go after certain posters.

Complete straw man. It is a useful comparistor not because of the bature of what the board it, but because the process of assessment why a law is reasonable carries the same logical approach. "Is this law justified? If so, why?" are the questions anyone making a rule and imposing it on others should ask and answer.

I am stating the reason quite clearly, and if communication is to be clear then by definition that means clarity, which you are not advancing.

No, to use your own analogy, this is like walking into a restaurant and asking what ingredients are used so you know that the price is justified. You wouldn't go into a restaurant and pay 20 bucks for a McDonald's cheeseburger would you? You'd want they burger made of the finest ingredients so that you know the money they were asking is justified. I want to know why this rule is justified by know what series of incidents prompted it. Not only is that a very basic question, I genuinely don't see the reason for the continued evasion in answering it. Such evasion only makes me think it's trumped up bullshit. That is unless you can tell me how giving out such information can somehow compromise the board's functionality (clue: it won't)?

Because, I, for one, was accused by Gul recently of abusing the function and I know for a fact that I have not used it excessively. I think that's why you don't want to give out a more detailed explanation....because you know there is an element of bullshit in it and don't want to have to discuss it. However, as Dayton correctly points out, you're just creating a greater reason for people to distrust you.

Be reasonable John.

You have three members who basically never agree on anything. From widely divergent backgrounds and obviously come at things with different ways of thinking. Yet all three are in agreement on this one issue. Hasn't it occurred to you that the only thing that could do so is that the three people in question might actually have a point?

. . . can't . . . breathe . . .

We just received a report, for example, where the complainant writes, "fuck 'da police." What would you make of something like that?

Only if you reform by giving up My Little Penis. It's corrupting your mind.

Here's the challenge to the naysayers: explain how we should deal with such a report. Then consider how we should deal with it if the person has made many similar reports. Go on, we'll wait.