Post by Photoshopper on Jul 18, 2006 10:41:49 GMT -6
I'm not going to write out 50 pages of rules intended to cover every possible bit of bad behavior that somebody might decide to engage in, the way some moderators will. I find myself wondering who is ever going to read one of those ponderous documents, aside from the aforementioned ill behaved people who will be on the hunt for a quote to take out of context as they try to play lawyer. So let's lay this one out from the beginning: this admin is putting an "elastic clause" in place. Any time a member of this board does something that falls under the category of "you know better", as defined by standard, common sense mores (pre-Internet, pre-postmodernism, pre-multicultural political correctness) in the Midwestern US, I'm going to crack down on the offending party whether there is a "rule" on the books to cover the situation or not.
This thought should give reasonable people little to fear, because the mores I refer to aren't particularly harsh ones. Let's note that they bear little resemblance to those prescribed by "netiquette" which, by and large, was written by trolls for trolls. One of the "rules" of netiquette seems to hold that no matter how clearly outrageous somebody's behavior is, that he's entitled to a few warnings before disciplinary action follows. Rubbish. If, for example, you've just posted nude photos of your girlfriend's children, violating the child pornography laws, you know better. A warning that you would be expecting to get is a warning that you shouldn't be given, because it's not giving you information that you didn't already have. One who asks for such a consideration isn't asking for clarity, he's asking for an opportunity to play civil disobedience games as he drags his feet on compliance with common sense norms of behavior, turning the whole thing into a test of wills. So, where behavior is clearly out of line, the rule will be "one strike and you're out".
That having been said, let's move on to what isn't common sense, necessarily.
This thought should give reasonable people little to fear, because the mores I refer to aren't particularly harsh ones. Let's note that they bear little resemblance to those prescribed by "netiquette" which, by and large, was written by trolls for trolls. One of the "rules" of netiquette seems to hold that no matter how clearly outrageous somebody's behavior is, that he's entitled to a few warnings before disciplinary action follows. Rubbish. If, for example, you've just posted nude photos of your girlfriend's children, violating the child pornography laws, you know better. A warning that you would be expecting to get is a warning that you shouldn't be given, because it's not giving you information that you didn't already have. One who asks for such a consideration isn't asking for clarity, he's asking for an opportunity to play civil disobedience games as he drags his feet on compliance with common sense norms of behavior, turning the whole thing into a test of wills. So, where behavior is clearly out of line, the rule will be "one strike and you're out".
That having been said, let's move on to what isn't common sense, necessarily.
