jghost7 wrote:malevolous wrote:Nice bait, J. Just a side thing, the note/warning says things are right on the line. To my mind that would say, "If you post even one more inappropriate thing, you could cross the line." So I personally see that as an absolute warning. Its like a no trespassing sign. If you see it, continue on, and then get busted, I don't think you can say it wasn't sufficient warning and expect no consequences. K, analogy done.
For the record, It is not a "bait". Nothing that I just wrote was intended to be inflammatory or even heated. I assumed it was a logical discussion of this topic, and that was what jj was pursuing.
As to the note/warning, it doesn't say what your mind says, but perhaps it should. Either way I am not attacking or defending what was in that thread. I have read it, and have found it entertaining for the most part. But , given the vagueness of the rule, the specificity of the warning is warranted. What is the line that you are not crossing? It is not defined, therefore you may only give an approximation. Most people know where the line is on a regular forum infraction and can easily avoid trouble of this nature. Here, we have a situation where anything you say could get you busted because of the wavering line. When the clan leader was pm'd and it was specifically addressed(I assume based on the post), is when a proper warning was given. Also, about consequences, if you feel that some of the things the Pack members wrote were offensive, there were other posts from non Pack members that would have been at the same level. And if that is the case, then what "consequences" were divvied up between them?
This is not a personal thing. I think that this would be an opportunity to straighten out this rule to make it more viable for future use. I think that if nothing is done, it would only get worse and would incur more hard feelings for the site and its volunteers.
Thanks for listening,
J
The question about discipline when there are no medals awarded is the only thing that requires attention, in my opinion. I agree that the thread was offensive, but that was from 2 different sides. One got disciplined, but the rule will only result in one sided abuse once the war is decided if no penalty is assessed beyond medals (unless its intended that the medal lost would be for a previous war, which is a tad counter-intuitive). I still say in my mind at least the warning would have been sufficient to deter me. If you care about civility, or at least care about avoiding loss due to infraction, saying you're one or two words from the edge would have me back-pedaling and toning it down. Any other response is just plain reckless. If I'm driving on a road and I'm one or two inches(words) from the edge, I would definitely step it back, or I shouldn't complain against the edge when I lose my car/health/life/(medals) as it was my choice to continue toeing the line. People were told they were on the line, and they chose to continue to try and stay as near as possible. They ended up over the line, and now are upset they fell. Rules are the bare minimum to preserve civility and a sociable atmosphere. Staying just on this side of it is to say you aren't afraid of crossing it. Now its been crossed, and people, instead of being grateful for any warning at all(most enforcement in the world is done without warnings), are upset they have to pay the consequence when they ignored it.
That said, I definitely think a penalty should be in place that goes into effect regardless of if the offender wins, or even participates in the war. Also, a higher degree of definition is also called for. A law should be clearer as to what is inappropriate. Avoiding excessive baiting, profanity, flaming, and even disrespect are the common sense codes of civility I try to abide by, but some people enjoy indulging in such things, and need the clarity of a well defined rule.
