Suggestion: Universal set of rules appear on every page for new users.

Karl Hungus

Alrighty, I think the title is rather self-explanatory as to what I'm suggesting here.

I was considering this, because lets face it, no matter how often you have a sticky that has the prefix "Read before posting" people just don't even open it, never mind taking the time to read, and comprehend it. A lot of people don't even know that creating a second account will get both accounts banned.

So my proposal will have a set of rules that are in large, bold text appearing on each page outlining what is not acceptable on a forum-wide basis. So as not to cause annoyance, this set of rules will stop appearing once the user has 10 posts.

It'll make it impossible to miss these rules. View a forum, the rules are there on top, click 'Post New Thread' and the rules are there on top. No getting away from it.

I know there are certain people here who would rather to just let people slip up and be banned as a stupidity filter, but reguardless of intelligence, I think that well-meaning and honest users can make a positive contribution to boards, and if things have to be spelled out for them, then so be it. I believe it would cut down on muppetry, and effort on behalf of the moderators, so it's win-win all round.

To better demonstrate what I'm talking about, here's a rough photoshop of my proposal:



Disclaimer: The rules depicted in my PS job are not the actual rules I'm suggesting.

Thoughts?

Tar.Aldarion

How new, how long would it last? Looks annoying. I think there should be an automated PM with links, explanations etc to new users as I have experienced on other fora. One even had a welcome committee to PM you and answer any of your questions.

Bard

People may not read PM's - or worse still - even realise that they have any or that such a feature exists on the site.

The charters ARE stupidity filters to some degree. If a user can't read a "READ THIS BEFORE YOU POST" thread, then there's something wrong - with them, not the 'system'. Some mods are too heavy handed, however, and could do with being more lenient in the geniune cases of misunderstanding - but on the very busy boards in particular, that's hard to do.

Tar.Aldarion

When you receive a PM, it should pop up on your screen by default?
Anyway, mine does but I don't know if that was set to default on Boards or if I changed it. If it is set to default they can not miss it, you just have to click ok and it brings you to the PM.

tbh

Karl Hungus wrote:

I know there are certain people here who would rather to just let people slip up and be banned as a stupidity filter, but reguardless of intelligence, I think that well-meaning and honest users can make a positive contribution to boards, and if things have to be spelled out for them, then so be it. I believe it would cut down on muppetry, and effort on behalf of the moderators, so it's win-win all round.

not a bad idea, but I can't get past the "stupidity filter" point. It'd be like David Attenborough watching a new seal pup being born and helping the ones that can't help themselves. No matter how much you might want him to do that, in the long run it's better for the natural order of things if the weak or stupid ones die off before they can breed.

Hagar

I think it's a very practical idea.
It probably wouldn't be any harm if it popped up randomly for everybody.
Even long time posters could do with reading the Charters of some of the newer Forums.

Karl Hungus

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

How new, how long would it last?

As I mentioned in the 3rd paraghraph, only untill the user has 10 posts.

tbh wrote:

not a bad idea, but I can't get past the "stupidity filter" point. It'd be like David Attenborough watching a new seal pup being born and helping the ones that can't help themselves. No matter how much you might want him to do that, in the long run it's better for the natural order of things if the weak or stupid ones die off before they can breed.

I don't think it's a fair comparison really. People new to boards mightn't realise that charters are different for each board, that there are different rules in practice on each board, and they might just read one charter, then think they've got it all down.

I think it should be highlighted in these rules I'm suggesting, that charters can differ vastly.

biko

Sure why not?
This or an initial PM with a basic set of rules (have been discussed in feedback before)

Tar.Aldarion

Karl Hungus wrote:

As I mentioned in the 3rd paraghraph, only untill the user has 10 posts.

Whoops, i should read it all loike.

tbh

Karl Hungus wrote:

I don't think it's a fair comparison really. People new to boards mightn't realise that charters are different for each board, that there are different rules in practice on each board, and they might just read one charter, then think they've got it all down.

I think it should be highlighted in these rules I'm suggesting, that charters can differ vastly.

yeah ok, fair point - plus it removes the ignorance defence, meaning mods should be less inclined to warn on the first infraction - one strike and you're banned. not necessarily a bad thing, and keeps both you and I happy

Karl Hungus

tbh wrote:

yeah ok, fair point - plus it removes the ignorance defence, meaning mods should be less inclined to warn on the first infraction - one strike and you're banned. not necessarily a bad thing, and keeps both you and I happy

I really don't think that mods should be less inclined to warn people. Infact, I think some mods don't warn users enough. People make mistakes, we're all human after all (except for amp, who was disqualified from the human race for shoving) and if users slip up, maybe they need to be reminded from time to time.

Ultimately though, other moderators can run their forums how they want, so yeah, if you want to just ban on first infraction basis, knock yourself out.

tbh

Karl Hungus wrote:

I really don't think that mods should be less inclined to warn people. Infact, I think some mods don't warn users enough. People make mistakes, we're all human after all (except for amp, who was disqualified from the human race for shoving) and if users slip up, maybe they need to be reminded from time to time.

Ultimately though, other moderators can run their forums how they want, so yeah, if you want to just ban on first infraction basis, knock yourself out.

if someone posted on one of your fora and broke the rules would you ban them or warn them? if the answer is the latter, why would you warn rather than ban them? if it's because they are new - lets say - and didn't see either the rules you are proposing, or the charter, then when do you move from banning to warning? first strike? second?

my point is, there's no point making the change you are suggesting just for the sake of it, without it having any knock-on effects. IMO naturally.

to reiterate: I think the idea has potential, I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it, just thrashing it out.

faceman

I think its a good idea (as is the PM idea) Although the "stupidity filter" will catch some people, i suspect most people will read one and assume it applies to all forums. When i joined boards i know i did until a few months after i joined.

That being said someone knew who starts blatently breaking rules and causing trouble dont give a toss about the rules anyway and genuine mistakes should just be warned in a relatively constructive way.

I'd agree with the PM idea, and I think one of the admins mentioned before how it'll be incorporated in VB 3.6+ (standard feature, I believe).

Karl Hungus

tbh wrote:

if someone posted on one of your fora and broke the rules would you ban them or warn them? if the answer is the latter, why would you warn rather than ban them? if it's because they are new - lets say - and didn't see either the rules you are proposing, or the charter, then when do you move from banning to warning? first strike? second?

I almost always warn them, usually via PM.

I find that I very rarely have to ban someone, because often enough, users make mistakes. You point it out to them, and they usually don't make the same mistake again, so it does nobody any good to ban them, and sometimes it can be a user who's been here for a very long time who makes that mistake.

Of course, that's just me, and the boards I moderate don't seem to get much muppetry at all, so personally, I don't feel much need to ban people at all.

tbh wrote:

my point is, there's no point making the change you are suggesting just for the sake of it, without it having any knock-on effects. IMO naturally.

to reiterate: I think the idea has potential, I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it, just thrashing it out.

No, I get you, and you do make a fair point.

These rules would not give rise to excuses of ignorance on the parts of the users, and probably cut down on feedback threads saying "Why was I banned?" Because it's all there in black and white, impossible to miss.

Tom Dunne

I would be all for this, but I am not so sure PM is the way to go. While I accept it pops up a dialogue box saying there is a message, I would be more inclined to go with the less subtle LARGE BOLD LETTERS.

I like the idea of it staying there until the user has reached a post-count of 10.

nesf

Karl Hungus wrote:

Ultimately though, other moderators can run their forums how they want, so yeah, if you want to just ban on first infraction basis, knock yourself out.

Depends completely and utterly on the infraction in question tbh.

billy the squid

Digital spy have something similar to what KH is suggesting, and they use vbulletin.

Karl Hungus

nesf wrote:

Depends completely and utterly on the infraction in question tbh.

Ah certainly. I just speak from my own experience here, and that the boards I moderate are generally very low on muppetry.

nesf

Karl Hungus wrote:

Ah certainly. I just speak from my own experience here, and that the boards I moderate are generally very low on muppetry.

My own experiences are slightly different as you might imagine.

To be fair, by and large users are grand, but there is a small minority that cause trouble on a scale where you can't give them the benefit of the doubt in some cases and we need the freedom to act appropiately in such cases.

Down with mandatory sentencing and all that.

Karl Hungus

nesf wrote:

My own experiences are slightly different as you might imagine.

After Hours? I would imagine it's a little bit different alright.

Still, if you need help there, I'd certainly be up to the task of spanking some AH noobs.

CuLT

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Whoops, i should read it all loike.

Why change a long tradition?

A set of boardswide rules do exist, they're just not written down anywhere to my knowledge. It would be great of one of the admins went about drawing them up; the rules may appear to be common sense to moderators/long term users, but once you've been in the box for a long time it's hard to imagine what it's like viewing it from the outside.

Time Magazine

Karl Hungus wrote:

Still, if you need help there, I'd certainly be up to the task of spanking some AH noobs.

FFS have you not completed enough amp tests already in your Boards career?!

Karl Hungus

Ibid wrote:

FFS have you not completed enough amp tests already in your Boards career?!

You think they even bother to amp test me these days?

Orion

It's a good idea alright but the main problem I foresee is that different mods apply the rules differently. Personally a mod has only had to speak to me once and that was for me essentially calling a troll a troll on the A&S forum. If I'd said the same thing on AH (for example) I may have been banned from AH for it instantly. What I posted did deserve Redshift warning me alright but on AH I may have earned a ban for it.

A global set of rules would first have to be discussed and agreed in the Mods forum and applied globally. But they would also have to be small and specific. Things like 'only one account' and 'no spam' are global of course. But 'no slagging' as an example can't be. In the old Unreal forum slagging was normal as it is in TCN and Thunderdome.

What's my point? Vodka dictates that global rules lists need to be short, specific and universally applied. I think.

Tar.Aldarion

CuLT wrote:

Why change a long tradition?

A set of boardswide rules do exist, they're just not written down anywhere to my knowledge. It would be great of one of the admins went about drawing them up; the rules may appear to be common sense to moderators/long term users, but once you've been in the box for a long time it's hard to imagine what it's like viewing it from the outside.

Yeah, for instance, it is really easy to get banned from PI a lot when starting out and just say, lighten up.

azezil

I named my IRON FIST OF TERROR, Steve ^_^

Karl Hungus

Macros42 wrote:

A global set of rules would first have to be discussed and agreed in the Mods forum and applied globally. But they would also have to be small and specific. Things like 'only one account' and 'no spam' are global of course. But 'no slagging' as an example can't be. In the old Unreal forum slagging was normal as it is in TCN and Thunderdome.

What's my point? Vodka dictates that global rules lists need to be short, specific and universally applied. I think.

And I agree with you completely. If the universal/global rules were taken under wing, it would certainly need careful consideration as to what those rules are. Although I for one would certainly consider that the "Beware of MAJD" rule is vital.

Karl Hungus

Hmm, I still think this is a good suggestion. Can we have an admin's perspective on this at all?

Rev Hellfire

Macros42 wrote:

Things like 'only one account'

There's no such rule as 'only one account', people can have multiple accounts. Its only an issue when they're used to circumvent a ban.

Orion

Rev Hellfire wrote:

There's no such rule as 'only one account', people can have multiple accounts. Its only an issue when they're used to circumvent a ban.

Are you sure? I thought that you were only allowed one account banned or not. I can't find the official rule atm - but the Wicklow mod seems to agree with me:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054870055

eoin_s wrote:

One account only: Having multiple accounts will most likely get you a site ban.

[edit]Anyway I only meant it as an example. If it's a rule or not doesn't bother me - I just may have picked a bad example to use as a global rule