Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
On a separate note, let's clear up the timeline a bit on the topic at hand.  We made a ruling on May 12th that said we would begin considering it a rule violation to bring vote conflicts to the forum.  On the first violation of this, we decided to issue a warning.

At the risk of getting hammered by my fellow posters, this is actually how I saw it as well.  What surprised me was no action was taken for the outright defiance that followed...at least no visible action was taken.

I didn't see it like this, but I do now once it has been explained. Agreed with second part, though.

Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
1. Thanks for telling us.

2. It's completely ridiculous that we weren't notified of this sooner. If a message that is breaking the rules is allowed to remain, there should be a moderator note left on that posting notifying everyone why that comment is left. Otherwise it will only signal that that kind of posting is acceptable.

Cosigned on both. A little communication goes a long way. The generic messages suck for numerous reasons, and what happened here is an example of just one.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
My panda won't wear a hat...he likes to go "bear"!

Oh, booooooooooooooooooooooo! 

To try and get this back on topic, I hope Invelos and the moderators learn something from this.
All that was needed to sort this whole mess was a little bit of communication. If only we had been told this information from the beginning.
Moderators please, explain a bit more about decisions so we know that something is happening.

Quoting ya_shin:

Quote:
Quoting Danae Cassandra:

Quote:
There is a quote from Kathy in Goblins' sig that I think sums up the best answer to dealing with the negativity we see in the forum:

Quote:
"It is difficult to ignore someone who you believe to be acting in a way that is inappropriate. But, that might be the best way to deal with the situation. Let us all try to do that and see if it is effective."

Yes there are users whose posts and behavior we find inappropriate.  If everyone stopped responding to those posts and that behavior - from whomever it is and whatever is posted - I sincerely believe that the behavior would cease. 

However everyone who contributes to it - by granting the behavior attention - is contributing to the problem. 

I suggest we try these steps:

1.  If a post offends you - do not respond to it.
2.  If a thread offends you - do not post in it.
3.  If you feel you cannot ignore posted messages from certain users, use the forum's block feature.  While problematic, it will likely be better than contributing to the problem.
4.  Take a personal pledge to make the forum a better place by:
    - behaving in a civilized manner in the forum
    - speaking to other members as you wish to be spoken to
    - treating all other members with respect, whether you agree with their opinion or not
    - disagreeing with another members opinion politely
    - ignoring any offensive behavior from any forum member
5.  Finally, remember what you learned in kindergarten - it is not okay to insult others and call them names.  Doing that does not make others want to play with you during recess.

I think if we all did this then the forum would be a much better place for everyone.

Post of the month!!! Thank you.

+1

Instead of blocking, I'm beginning to take advantage of the "friends" feature to help catch posts by people whose tone and commentary I particularly appreciate even though I rarely use the PM feature.  Much easier now that I can start spotting "green" posts.  It's like a customizable "star" system.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
The thread was locked and the user warned. I'm not sure where the impression was given that an immediate ban would be given - a warning was appropriate in this case. If the problem is repeated, it will be dealt with.

It was already repeated. By the same user who has a least half a dozen locked threads to his credit for doing the same exact thing. It's not like he slipped up. And he taunted you and all of us by saying that doing it was more important that your rule against it.

So you gave it a warning when it was repeated. Before it was repeated, you said you would "put a stop to it". A forum moderator said it would not be tolerated. Then it was repeated and you gave a warning. Now you say if it's repeated again "it will be dealt with". How will it be dealt with? With a warning? Will it be tolerated? Put a stop to it! Deal with it! For real. And without "surprise" that someone might have actually gotten the impression from your words that we could expect you to actually put a stop to it or deal with it. If you say it, do it.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
The original message was left unedited so that others could see what the offending post was.

Others needed to continue to see my name in the original message? It was important that I continue to be shown to be the user called out for my vote? You or your moderator said you consider this a form of harassment. I consider it harassment to show up at the forums and see that I'm being publicly shamed -- freaking again -- for one of my votes. But you felt it was important to leave it so others could see it. I don't get that. I don't care to be left as an example so others understand what the offending post was. Remove the post, replace it with "don't call out votes in the forum" and lock the thread. Other's rights to know what the original post was shouldn't trump my right to not be harassed.

When I saw the notes that it wouldn't be tolerated and you'd put a stop to it, I knew I had to check myself so I didn't cross that line either. I expect the same in return.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
In cases of name calling or other direct attacks, we generally prefer to remove the language but in this case felt it would be beneficial overall to leave it and instead warn the user and lock the thread.

It is a direct attack to list my name when complaining about voters. Your moderator said that this is a form of harassment. I agree! By leaving the post, you accomplished the goal of the post which was to shame me for my vote. By leaving it alone, you are a partner in the harassment.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
The avatar was removed by a forum admin at the request of another user.  The admin felt it was perceived as an attack on that user. 

I think it's clear the avatar is targeted at a particular user, but I don't feel it meets the criteria for personal attack and so I've reinstated the avatar.

I have red-arrowed nearly 2 dozen posts in the past 7 days that contain personal attacks. I'm referring to any instance where a user is attacked as a person instead of their ideas. Those remain unedited. You have a much higher tolerance for personal attacks than I do obviously. So be it, but it's interesting that someone's avatar could be perceived as an attack on another user and removed when there is so much you guys could do to fix the "personal attack" situation here in the forums. Just a hint: northbloke's avatar is not the problem. I've put the avatar up for myself. It's not against a user. It's a comment on "the warning".

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
On a separate note, let's clear up the timeline a bit on the topic at hand.  We made a ruling on May 12th that said we would begin considering it a rule violation to bring vote conflicts to the forum.  On the first violation of this, we decided to issue a warning.

Actually, it wasn't "begin considering it a rule violation". You or your moderator said "Forum Moderator: Removed. Calling out users in the forums for their votes is no longer tolerated." But it seems the first violation was tolerated.

Quoting Taro:

Quote:
So where does Invelos draw the line?

Or ... is the policy adapted depending on the user in question perhaps, like I already suspected back in December?

It certainly appears that the line is drawn and redrawn and redefined and extended around depending on the user involved.

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
lyonsden5 preaches.

AMEN! 

In USSR, we like sexy time.

Alright, I'll joing the movement. With a bit of flair thrown in.

Quoting reybr:

Quote:
What I would like to see is all those Disney avatars changed back or deleted by the users who added them.

1. When people have the same avatar, the forum gets confusing to read.

2. (and the most important) It does nothing to help with the atmosphere in the forum. You all know why that avatar was chosen. (And it was not to give a tribute to Disney.)

I have to say I agree

Quoting Antares:

Quote:
[youtube]

The Pythons always get a green arrow!

P.S.  I dare you to try to profile those credits. 

(Now, back to lurking.)