Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions

[Rondo2287]

I would have to say that if an ombudsman were to be elected, it would have to be a unanimous choice.  

The way I understand this, among some members of the community, there is a distrust of the staff in general.  There is a perception by some people that we are not always being fair.  Is that correct?

So, if we are going to correct this by making a non-staff-member privy to private discussions, then that non-staff-member needs to be more respected by every member of the site, or else that person's assurances will be taken with the same grain of salt that is afforded the staff, and we are right back where we started, except, we have compromised the privacy of the posters by allowing a non-staff-member to be privy to the private discussions of the staff, regarding these posters.

I say we assign every member a member-number, then using a random number generator generate a number evertime there is a disciplinary action.  The member who is assigned that member number is then drafted to be on the disciplinary board for that disciplinary decision.  It would be like Celticsblog Jury duty.

Terrible idea, posters have different standards many of them far from CBs rules.

Also a great many more posters wouldn't want to bother, so then discipline decisions would take much much longer. That's not good for any party.

Those that would "serve" would suddenly have access to the private disciplining making it much harder to keep such things quiet and private.

Ya it was really more a joke than anything else.  But thanks for calling my idea terrible, i appreciate it.

[Chris]

I would have to say that if an ombudsman were to be elected, it would have to be a unanimous choice.  

The way I understand this, among some members of the community, there is a distrust of the staff in general.  There is a perception by some people that we are not always being fair.  Is that correct?

So, if we are going to correct this by making a non-staff-member privy to private discussions, then that non-staff-member needs to be more respected by every member of the site, or else that person's assurances will be taken with the same grain of salt that is afforded the staff, and we are right back where we started, except, we have compromised the privacy of the posters by allowing a non-staff-member to be privy to the private discussions of the staff, regarding these posters.

I say we assign every member a member-number, then using a random number generator generate a number evertime there is a disciplinary action.  The member who is assigned that member number is then drafted to be on the disciplinary board for that disciplinary decision.  It would be like Celticsblog Jury duty.

Terrible idea, posters have different standards many of them far from CBs rules.

Also a great many more posters wouldn't want to bother, so then discipline decisions would take much much longer. That's not good for any party.

Those that would "serve" would suddenly have access to the private disciplining making it much harder to keep such things quiet and private.

Ya it was really more a joke than anything else.  But thanks for calling my idea terrible, i appreciate it.

You want honest feedback, right?

[MattG12]

I would have to say that if an ombudsman were to be elected, it would have to be a unanimous choice.  

The way I understand this, among some members of the community, there is a distrust of the staff in general.  There is a perception by some people that we are not always being fair.  Is that correct?

So, if we are going to correct this by making a non-staff-member privy to private discussions, then that non-staff-member needs to be more respected by every member of the site, or else that person's assurances will be taken with the same grain of salt that is afforded the staff, and we are right back where we started, except, we have compromised the privacy of the posters by allowing a non-staff-member to be privy to the private discussions of the staff, regarding these posters.

I say we assign every member a member-number, then using a random number generator generate a number evertime there is a disciplinary action.  The member who is assigned that member number is then drafted to be on the disciplinary board for that disciplinary decision.  It would be like Celticsblog Jury duty.

Terrible idea, posters have different standards many of them far from CBs rules.

Also a great many more posters wouldn't want to bother, so then discipline decisions would take much much longer. That's not good for any party.

Those that would "serve" would suddenly have access to the private disciplining making it much harder to keep such things quiet and private.

Ya it was really more a joke than anything else.  But thanks for calling my idea terrible, i appreciate it.

Yeah that was a little over the top... could have explained why it's a not a good idea and said good try.

[MattG12]

I would have to say that if an ombudsman were to be elected, it would have to be a unanimous choice.  

The way I understand this, among some members of the community, there is a distrust of the staff in general.  There is a perception by some people that we are not always being fair.  Is that correct?

So, if we are going to correct this by making a non-staff-member privy to private discussions, then that non-staff-member needs to be more respected by every member of the site, or else that person's assurances will be taken with the same grain of salt that is afforded the staff, and we are right back where we started, except, we have compromised the privacy of the posters by allowing a non-staff-member to be privy to the private discussions of the staff, regarding these posters.

I say we assign every member a member-number, then using a random number generator generate a number evertime there is a disciplinary action.  The member who is assigned that member number is then drafted to be on the disciplinary board for that disciplinary decision.  It would be like Celticsblog Jury duty.

Terrible idea, posters have different standards many of them far from CBs rules.

Also a great many more posters wouldn't want to bother, so then discipline decisions would take much much longer. That's not good for any party.

Those that would "serve" would suddenly have access to the private disciplining making it much harder to keep such things quiet and private.

Ya it was really more a joke than anything else.  But thanks for calling my idea terrible, i appreciate it.

You want honest feedback, right?

It's possible to be honest without being a complete jerk.

[indeedproceed]

I would have to say that if an ombudsman were to be elected, it would have to be a unanimous choice.  

The way I understand this, among some members of the community, there is a distrust of the staff in general.  There is a perception by some people that we are not always being fair.  Is that correct?

So, if we are going to correct this by making a non-staff-member privy to private discussions, then that non-staff-member needs to be more respected by every member of the site, or else that person's assurances will be taken with the same grain of salt that is afforded the staff, and we are right back where we started, except, we have compromised the privacy of the posters by allowing a non-staff-member to be privy to the private discussions of the staff, regarding these posters.

I say we assign every member a member-number, then using a random number generator generate a number evertime there is a disciplinary action.  The member who is assigned that member number is then drafted to be on the disciplinary board for that disciplinary decision.  It would be like Celticsblog Jury duty.

Terrible idea, posters have different standards many of them far from CBs rules.

Also a great many more posters wouldn't want to bother, so then discipline decisions would take much much longer. That's not good for any party.

Those that would "serve" would suddenly have access to the private disciplining making it much harder to keep such things quiet and private.

Ya it was really more a joke than anything else.  But thanks for calling my idea terrible, i appreciate it.

You want honest feedback, right?

It's possible to be honest without being a complete jerk.

To be fair, he did explain why he didn't like it.

[Chris]

I would have to say that if an ombudsman were to be elected, it would have to be a unanimous choice.  

The way I understand this, among some members of the community, there is a distrust of the staff in general.  There is a perception by some people that we are not always being fair.  Is that correct?

So, if we are going to correct this by making a non-staff-member privy to private discussions, then that non-staff-member needs to be more respected by every member of the site, or else that person's assurances will be taken with the same grain of salt that is afforded the staff, and we are right back where we started, except, we have compromised the privacy of the posters by allowing a non-staff-member to be privy to the private discussions of the staff, regarding these posters.

I say we assign every member a member-number, then using a random number generator generate a number evertime there is a disciplinary action.  The member who is assigned that member number is then drafted to be on the disciplinary board for that disciplinary decision.  It would be like Celticsblog Jury duty.

Terrible idea, posters have different standards many of them far from CBs rules.

Also a great many more posters wouldn't want to bother, so then discipline decisions would take much much longer. That's not good for any party.

Those that would "serve" would suddenly have access to the private disciplining making it much harder to keep such things quiet and private.

Ya it was really more a joke than anything else.  But thanks for calling my idea terrible, i appreciate it.

You want honest feedback, right?

It's possible to be honest without being a complete jerk.

Really?  You thought he was being a complete jerk?  

Maybe I read it differently, but I thought it was an honest response, explaining that he thought it was a terrible idea, and then following that up with why he thought that.

Throughout this whole thread, it seems one of the biggest themes is that we do not explain ourselves well enough.  In this case, Fafnir laid out exactly what the problem was with the idea.  I do not see how that is being a jerk.

[Master Po]

How about appointing me omnbudsman

 A man who investigates complaints and mediates fair settlements, especially between aggrieved parties such as consumers or students and an institution or organization.

Of course we will be using my definition of fair....I would also predict swift settlements
"Be like the mirror.... Allow no evil to pass through you. Reflect it to its source."

[the_Bird]

I should probably just shut up because I don't have anything constructive to add....

But forty-four pages of discussion because some people don't like how the mods do their job around here?  REALLY?

What about "we do our best to act under Jeff's guidelines, we're not perfect but we do our best, if you don't think we're being fair, you're more than welcome to go hang out at RealGM?"

Face it, you're never going to please everyone.  Maybe I've missed something, but I don't ever recall thinking that this place was being unfairly moderated or anything or that the rules were unreasonable.  I mean, any time you have a forum as large as this, SOMEONE'S panties are going to get in a twist.  Tend to think that adding an omsbudman isn't going to solve anything - it'll just be someone new for people to **** and moan about.

EDIT: The other forum I've been a part of for years, I modded for a while.  We grew a LOT over the years I've been there.  Keith, the owner, was very clear that we were never going to please EVERYONE, and that he knew and understood that people were going to cycle through the site; people might get upset about something and leave, and there really wasn't anything that we could do about it.  Some people just need drama; you can be as fair and open and transparent as possible, and some people are still going to find something to fault you for.  Just makes me think this whole thread is ridiculous.

[Rondo2287]

I would have to say that if an ombudsman were to be elected, it would have to be a unanimous choice.  

The way I understand this, among some members of the community, there is a distrust of the staff in general.  There is a perception by some people that we are not always being fair.  Is that correct?

So, if we are going to correct this by making a non-staff-member privy to private discussions, then that non-staff-member needs to be more respected by every member of the site, or else that person's assurances will be taken with the same grain of salt that is afforded the staff, and we are right back where we started, except, we have compromised the privacy of the posters by allowing a non-staff-member to be privy to the private discussions of the staff, regarding these posters.

I say we assign every member a member-number, then using a random number generator generate a number evertime there is a disciplinary action.  The member who is assigned that member number is then drafted to be on the disciplinary board for that disciplinary decision.  It would be like Celticsblog Jury duty.

Terrible idea, posters have different standards many of them far from CBs rules.

Also a great many more posters wouldn't want to bother, so then discipline decisions would take much much longer. That's not good for any party.

Those that would "serve" would suddenly have access to the private disciplining making it much harder to keep such things quiet and private.

Ya it was really more a joke than anything else.  But thanks for calling my idea terrible, i appreciate it.

You want honest feedback, right?

It's possible to be honest without being a complete jerk.

Really?  You thought he was being a complete jerk?  

Maybe I read it differently, but I thought it was an honest response, explaining that he thought it was a terrible idea, and then following that up with why he thought that.

Throughout this whole thread, it seems one of the biggest themes is that we do not explain ourselves well enough.  In this case, Fafnir laid out exactly what the problem was with the idea.  I do not see how that is being a jerk.

While I did find it to be condescending and disrespectful, especially since another poster had already said that they thought it was a good idea, its alright, you win some and you lose some.

[barefacedmonk]

But forty-four pages of discussion because some people don't like how the mods do their job around here?  REALLY?

Just makes me think this whole thread is ridiculous.

This thread is almost 3 years old...44 pages overs three years doesn't seem very ridiculous.

[indeedproceed]

But forty-four pages of discussion because some people don't like how the mods do their job around here?  REALLY?

Just makes me think this whole thread is ridiculous.

This thread is almost 3 years old...44 pages overs three years doesn't seem very ridiculous.

Yeah but it really heated up at the end of last summer. Some good reading in here if you're into soap operas.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I would have to say that if an ombudsman were to be elected, it would have to be a unanimous choice.  

The way I understand this, among some members of the community, there is a distrust of the staff in general.  There is a perception by some people that we are not always being fair.  Is that correct?

So, if we are going to correct this by making a non-staff-member privy to private discussions, then that non-staff-member needs to be more respected by every member of the site, or else that person's assurances will be taken with the same grain of salt that is afforded the staff, and we are right back where we started, except, we have compromised the privacy of the posters by allowing a non-staff-member to be privy to the private discussions of the staff, regarding these posters.

I say we assign every member a member-number, then using a random number generator generate a number evertime there is a disciplinary action.  The member who is assigned that member number is then drafted to be on the disciplinary board for that disciplinary decision.  It would be like Celticsblog Jury duty.

Terrible idea, posters have different standards many of them far from CBs rules.

Also a great many more posters wouldn't want to bother, so then discipline decisions would take much much longer. That's not good for any party.

Those that would "serve" would suddenly have access to the private disciplining making it much harder to keep such things quiet and private.

Ya it was really more a joke than anything else.  But thanks for calling my idea terrible, i appreciate it.

You want honest feedback, right?

It's possible to be honest without being a complete jerk.

Really?  You thought he was being a complete jerk?  

Maybe I read it differently, but I thought it was an honest response, explaining that he thought it was a terrible idea, and then following that up with why he thought that.

Throughout this whole thread, it seems one of the biggest themes is that we do not explain ourselves well enough.  In this case, Fafnir laid out exactly what the problem was with the idea.  I do not see how that is being a jerk.

Too many sensitive people around. I say grow a bit of thick skin and roll with the punches. This is obviously the main problem if anything. I don't know how much more this forum can do to "protect the sentiments" of it's members, and maintain a "respectful environment". In fact, one of my various complaints (which I have voiced a few times) is how too polite this forum is. And yet people complain about the staff being rude. Sorry but I have to laugh at that.

It reminds me of 5 year olds running to mom because "Jimmy called me stupid". Lol.

Come on, people. This is a freaking discussion forum, not a convent.

[the_Bird]

+1 BudC.  That's what it comes down to, really. 

[Fafnir]

While I did find it to be condescending and disrespectful, especially since another poster had already said that they thought it was a good idea, its alright, you win some and you lose some.

Why does another posters opinion affect what you think of my response?

I was calling it a bad idea, that was my opinion of it and I gave my reasons for calling it such. That's my honest opinion and it wasn't conveyed disrespectfuly.

Just like I've called it a terrible idea to bench KG and start Sheed/BBD, or many other ideas that I thought were "awful", "terrible", and "bad".

[Chris]

While I did find it to be condescending and disrespectful, especially since another poster had already said that they thought it was a good idea, its alright, you win some and you lose some.

Why does another posters opinion affect what you think of my response?

I was calling it a bad idea, that was my opinion of it and I gave my reasons for calling it such. That's my honest opinion and it wasn't conveyed disrespectfuly.

Just like I've called it a terrible idea to bench KG and start Sheed/BBD, or many other ideas that I thought were "awful", "terrible", and "bad".

Exactly, and I see that in no way disrespectful.  Ideas are open game.  Posters are not.  You attacked the idea.