General > General Discussion
BrotherInWar campaign
Peppermint Pig:
--- Quote ---First I would like to answer your second question, about the ability for Reps to lock topics, my opinion towards that area would be no. Reps don't need the ability of such a degree as lock topic but a lower caliber temp lock or a post block from certain members that caused the topic to be locked.
--- End quote ---
Having the ability is an all or nothing condition, and you could always unlock a topic later on. If you at least had the option of using it, or put it to a vote in important situations, would you rather not have such a tool at your disposal? Are you afraid of repercussions from utilizing such a power?
--- Quote ---To answer your first comment/question I feel it's just human nature to dismiss someone they can't see. In other words when your online and you don't agree with someone you can just ignore him or her; or insult him or her as much as you want knowing they cannot touch you. Yet in real life when there is someone you don't agree with you still have to deal with him or her.
--- End quote ---
Should people be accountable to one another on the forum then? To what extent should ignorance be considered a solution over conflict? Do you believe representatives should take an active role in mediation to resolve issues?
Thanks for your time, candidate BrotherInWar.
Mercury Rising:
--- Quote from: Peppermint Pig on August 21, 2005, 03:56:21 am ---
--- Quote ---First I would like to answer your second question, about the ability for Reps to lock topics, my opinion towards that area would be no. Reps don't need the ability of such a degree as lock topic but a lower caliber temp lock or a post block from certain members that caused the topic to be locked.
--- End quote ---
Having the ability is an all or nothing condition, and you could always unlock a topic later on. If you at least had the option of using it, or put it to a vote in important situations, would you rather not have such a tool at your disposal? Are you afraid of repercussions from utilizing such a power?
--- Quote ---To answer your first comment/question I feel it's just human nature to dismiss someone they can't see. In other words when your online and you don't agree with someone you can just ignore him or her; or insult him or her as much as you want knowing they cannot touch you. Yet in real life when there is someone you don't agree with you still have to deal with him or her.
--- End quote ---
Should people be accountable to one another on the forum then? To what extent should ignorance be considered a solution over conflict? Do you believe representatives should take an active role in mediation to resolve issues?
Thanks for your time, candidate BrotherInWar.
--- End quote ---
Still clicking refresh...
I will answer in written order this time. What I meant was the lock the topic from all that didn't create the topic or are in forum government (If it could work like that), or did you mean lock the topic as in for repeated questions (or fights too)? The fear is nonexistent its just the fact of if a Rep which isn’t as higher power as a Mod gets insulted in a good topic they can kill it if they would like. Yet yes others would be able to unlock it but a determined person could keep it locked until it falls into "I dun' member pa" status.
As for your second question(s) a fight can go on a forum until one of the parties isn't considering the fight a joke anymore. Most fights on forums are just jesting. Yet when a side regresses it isn’t the necessarily the other party who gets a slap on the wrist, it's both sides. If both parties go beyond jesting and start angrily writing posts then both sides need to be punished no matter which one caves. (how pathetic does that sound) People are responsible for their own actions / relationships regardless no matter who they talk to or where they are.
This story leads to the answer to you final question. In my school we had something called peer mediation. Where 5 goody goody kids would listen to all sides of the story and have the fighting parties resolve their issues in a civil legal manner without harsh punishment. More than 3/4's of all mediations led to future fistfights. Mediation solves some things but not all. Sometimes a slap on the wrist with a metal baseball bat is all they need. (IE Post count zap, Temp banning, user name ban, IP ban, and a silencer [where the user can only post 2 times a day / limited time logged in a day, lower than Temp banning on the calibers of punishment if such a thing is possible.]) As in the participation of Reps in these mediations I feel yes but, the position shouldn't be handed to them, all forms of forum government should take part in resolving conflicts between members.
I may not know technologically what this forum can do as in for features, yet I feel that’s a good thing because then ideas aren’t limited.
Peppermint Pig:
I'm unsure that we can prevent an individual from posting further to a thread if they misbehaved in it once.
I'm not clear on your question about locking, but I'll try to respond to what I did understand... you believe that representatives may be corrupt and lock quality threads for inappropriate reasons? Will working with other representatives be a problem if they share such a power?
It's difficult to set an appropriate punishment sometimes. Absolutes like member/non-member are too sharp a contrast, but post zaps tend to only make people resistant to making reparations for an offense they have committed. They usually begin to resent any authority.
In the case of two sides caving to a fight, would it be better to provide multiple choices that encourage an improvement in relations before resorting to punishments? If they can undo the damage, what harm is there to provide mediation toward that end before an end is chosen for them? A spoken contract cannot substitute a state of peace, but setting a warning for further disruption may prove most effective?
--- Quote ---As in the participation of Reps in these mediations I feel yes but, the position shouldn't be handed to them, all forms of forum government should take part in resolving conflicts between members.
--- End quote ---
I agree. Representatives should remain a vestige of parallel with the membership, getting involved with an issue when sought by a member.
Mercury Rising:
--- Quote from: Peppermint Pig on August 21, 2005, 05:16:53 am ---I'm unsure that we can prevent an individual from posting further to a thread if they misbehaved in it once.
I'm not clear on your question about locking, but I'll try to respond to what I did understand... you believe that representatives may be corrupt and lock quality threads for inappropriate reasons? Will working with other representatives be a problem if they share such a power?
It's difficult to set an appropriate punishment sometimes. Absolutes like member/non-member are too sharp a contrast, but post zaps tend to only make people resistant to making reparations for an offense they have committed. They usually begin to resent any authority.
In the case of two sides caving to a fight, would it be better to provide multiple choices that encourage an improvement in relations before resorting to punishments? If they can undo the damage, what harm is there to provide mediation toward that end before an end is chosen for them? A spoken contract cannot substitute a state of peace, but setting a warning for further disruption may prove most effective?
--- Quote ---As in the participation of Reps in these mediations I feel yes but, the position shouldn't be handed to them, all forms of forum government should take part in resolving conflicts between members.
--- End quote ---
I agree. Representatives should remain a vestige of parallel with the membership, getting involved with an issue when sought by a member.
--- End quote ---
How reps will respond to the power of the ability to lock threads can only be found out in due time. "The best to teach your kids discipline isn’t through physical abuse its mental abuse that causes the longest lasting scars," err wait now, this quote, "The best way to teach a kid to not play with matches it to let them burn themselves."
I wasn't saying the mediation didn't help. Fights without mediation usually included cops, drugs, baseball bats, and candy; if that’s what you were asking. There was still a round' a 25% chance of success. Yet it doesn't hurt anything if it’s tried. Mediation should be tried before anything else in most cases. I say most because I've seen people do something that they were perm banned so fast very few saw what they posted. I believe a combination of peace treaties and harsh example punishments work the best. Where peace treaties are set in place and harsh punishments are there for the slightest toe out of line in breaking the treaty.
Peppermint Pig:
Perhaps we should look at this from another perspective: Positive reinforcement and activities that encourage cooperation?
Also, what kind of challenges would you like to run as a representative? Anything in particular?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version