Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Forum Rules (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Forum Rules
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Many people do not read the About Ornery part of the site. It has the basic guide lines that OSC has for the site. I am also going to include the suspension rules and a few rules of my own. Please note the last couple of paragraphs.
quote:
1. We aren't impressed by your credentials, Dr. This or Senator That. We aren't going to take your word for it, we're going to think it through for ourselves.

2. We don't like being spun. That doesn't mean we aren't sometimes fooled by the way reporters slant their stories, but when we find out how we've been manipulated, we get a little mad and we refuse to trust that writer, commentator, that magazine, that newspaper, that news network, or that politician again.

3. We think America is larger and more important than our self-interest. You can't buy our integrity with a boomtown economy, and we won't let you shame our country just to avoid risking American lives. We Americans have never been afraid to make sacrifices for a worthy cause.

4. We believe that character matters -- our own character, the character of our leaders, and the character of our nation as a whole. We don't like bullies and cowards, liars and hypocrites, and we don't appreciate it when our leaders make our nation behave as if that were what Americans are.

5. We'll forgive your misdeeds, but only if you apologize sincerely and never do it again. Our trust, once betrayed, is not lightly restored.

6. We vote.

7. We know that good, wise people sometimes disagree. So we listen to the views of others, and have no patience with those who shout others down or use ridicule or coercion to silence serious arguments. Only fanatics and dictators assume that anyone who disagrees with them must be evil or stupid.

8. We believe in right or wrong. Individual cases may merit compassion, but the law must be respected. Along with individual freedom must come responsibility for others. Along with compassion for the minority's needs must come respect for the majority's will.

9. We believe in representative government, with the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution. Judges do not have the right to create law. Presidents do not have the right to lie to, conceal information from, or ignore the prerogatives of Congress. Congressmen must act first for the good of the nation, and only secondarily for the benefit of their constituents.

10. We reject violence except in self-defense or to protect the weak against aggression.

If you are an Ornery American, we hope you'll take part here and invite others to join us as well.

On this website, we welcome serious discussion about events, ideas, leaders, candidates, parties, principles, governments, religions, philosophies, and programs.

If you post something and someone disagrees with your idea, their disagreement does not erase your original statement. There is no need to answer except to clarify or offer new material.

Personal attacks, mockery, or speculation about the motives of people posting here are not allowed, and such posts will be removed without notification. Repeated offenders will be banned from the site.

Personal courtesy is the fundamental condition of free discussion, and free discussion is the fundamental condition of democratic government.


One rule that I have is that I do not like members to have multiple logons. There may be reasons you need multiple logons. For example RedskullVW has a second logon RedskullVW on a Laptop. This does not mislead any one as to who the person is. If you feel a need for a second logon contact me and we will see what can be done. However do not expect to get it.

I have talked to the Cards. They view this forum as their living room where a bunch of people are having a discussion. I am the guy they asked to try and keep people civil.

Now here is the suspension/banning rules I have been trying to follow.

Here is the new standard I am going to try and hold to. One warning, by e-mail, and then on the second offense you are suspended for two weeks. Third offense is a month and the fourth is banning. What constitues an offense is up to my judgement. That is what I was asked to do when the Cards approached me to be the Mod, some one to judge when the line has been crossed. When you asked who appointed me judge, the Cards did.


OrneryMod

Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Politius
Member
Member # 1756

 - posted      Profile for Politius   Email Politius   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A-MEN!!!!
Posts: 168 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just have to say I love the parser. I no longer have to bother with what words are ornery ok and what are not. We--me and all my public school kiddies--just meet in the jello pit and all sort it out.
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ivan
Member
Member # 1467

 - posted      Profile for Ivan   Email Ivan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
9. We believe in representative government, with the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution. Judges do not have the right to create law. Presidents do not have the right to lie to, conceal information from, or ignore the prerogatives of Congress. Congressmen must act first for the good of the nation, and only secondarily for the benefit of their constituents.

10. We reject violence except in self-defense or to protect the weak against aggression.

Have these always been there? I remember reading over this section years (2-4) back, but I don't remember these being there.

Any of you old-timers know for sure?

Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ivan
Member
Member # 1467

 - posted      Profile for Ivan   Email Ivan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes you know for sure? or Yes they have always been there?

I'm betting its the former, but I'm honestly not sure.

Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
sorry. yes, they have always beenn there
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"7. We know that good, wise people sometimes disagree. So we listen to the views of others, and have no patience with those who shout others down or use ridicule or coercion to silence serious arguments. Only fanatics and dictators assume that anyone who disagrees with them must be evil or stupid. "

I'd like to call OSC on this one for his ironically titled essay on hypocrisy. Sheesh.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Shush, just because Dad says we can't drink beer doesn't mean he can't.

[Smile]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JLMyers
Member
Member # 1983

 - posted      Profile for JLMyers   Email JLMyers   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Presidents don't have the right to lie? That is blatantly ridiculous. Does this only apply to their sex-lives, or in cases of National Security, also? More OSC, being OSC. God he is a good writer.

JL/KE

"One warning, by e-mail," (Has this always applied? Please warn me before suspending me this time!) Or at least be good enough to apologize when you don't follow your own rules.

[ October 29, 2004, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: JLMyers ]

Posts: 2007 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it's pretty obvious that in extreme cases no warning should be given, but maybe that should be added to the rules.

[ November 02, 2004, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
These were the new rules were instituted after the "Ornery 8".

OrneryMod

Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OM:

(1) We do occasionally have some serious scientific and scifi discussions here too, y'know [Mad] ! That's where I learn the most, actually.

(2) And there are a couple of us here who are not the least impressed with those who have no credentials at all [Wink] . Actually, when I heard that somebody here was like a real-live bishop or something, I almost wet my pants with excitement;)!

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ATW
Member
Member # 1690

 - posted      Profile for ATW   Email ATW   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not a real-live bishop but I have been accused of being a real-live pawn.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul C
Member
Member # 1804

 - posted      Profile for Paul C   Email Paul C   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've wet my pants with excitement...

Maybe I shouldn't have told you that?

Posts: 188 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Annoyed Man
New Member
Member # 2387

 - posted      Profile for The Annoyed Man   Email The Annoyed Man   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is a breath of fresh air. I've tried to do the same at my own website. It's a concept that some people really struggle with, but I believe that there are still plenty of reasonable people out there who operate on the principle that you are still their brother or sister, even if you don't agree with them.

Of course, being The Annoyed Man, I have to work hard at it. [Big Grin]

Posts: 2 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Government is so evil it ought to be illegal."
P.J. O'Rourke

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We reject violence except in self-defense or to protect the weak against aggression.
I take it that violence for the sake of entertainment is right out, then? [Wink]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
maniacal_engineer
Member
Member # 116

 - posted      Profile for maniacal_engineer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it depends on the quality of the referees
Posts: 962 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Zyne mentioned the parser. If we say some nasty words, they get ***'d out. Here's my question -- on the operator side, can you assign specific replacement text to specific items?

For example, could you have the term
code:
 AFAIK 

replaced with the string:
code:
[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=afaik]AFAIK[/url]

So that when I type in
quote:
AFAIK
it shows up as
quote:
AFAIK
Because that would be very, very nifty.

Here's another replacement I'd recommend:

code:
ForumRules!

changes to

code:
[URL=http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?
ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=004855]Ornery Forum Rules[/URL]

And looks like this:
quote:
Ornery Forum Rules
See where I'm going with this?

There are some things that I end up saying so often on this site, that I sometimes get impatient. While I seem to have this problem more than anyone else, I don't think that I'm the only one. I think it might not only save me time and patience, but actually prevent threads from getting broken up with questions about who said what when, with resulting meta-arguments, if I could say something like:

PXYQwSQEiC!

which would come out as follows:

[ May 29, 2005, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
PXYQwSQEiC, pronounced "shik-skweek"
(Acronym) (Abbrev.)

Acronym for "Please eXplain Your Question with Source Quote Emphasized in Context."

1. Abbreviation for:

quote:
Dear Respondent,

That's not exactly what I said. Perhaps I failed to clearly express what I meant. Perhaps I misunderstood your question. In any event, I require your assistance to clear up this misunderstanding. Would you Please eXplain Your Question, using the actual Source Quote? I would be especially grateful it if you would quote enough Context to make clear what I actually meant, Emphasizing the specific words that you responded to.

If you do not respond, I shall assume that you have answered your own question by checking what I said, and that this is no longer an issue.


Thank you for helping make Ornery what it is.

Respectfully,

Your devoted adversary.

2. Abbreviation for:

quote:
Dear Respondent,

I don't think that I said anything of the sort. Perhaps I failed to clearly express what I meant. Perhaps I misunderstood your question. In any event, I require your assistance to clear up this misunderstanding. Would you Please eXplain Your Question, using the actual Source Quote? I would be especially grateful it if you would quote enough Context to make clear what I actually meant, Emphasizing the specific words that you responded to.

If you do not respond, I shall assume that you have answered your own question by checking what I said, and that this is no longer an issue.

Thank you for helping make Ornery what it is.

Respectfully,

Your annoyed adversary.

3. Abbreviation for:

quote:
Dear Respondent,

I have the vague impression that you were trying to respond to something that you suppose that I said. Perhaps I failed to clearly express what I meant. Perhaps I misunderstood your question. Perhaps you have confused me with another person. Perhaps one, or both of us, could benefit from a change of eyeglasses or medication. In any event, I require your assistance to clear up this misunderstanding. Would you Please eXplain Your Question, using the actual Source Quote? I would be especially grateful it if you would quote enough Context to make clear what I actually meant, Emphasizing the specific words that you responded to.

If I do not see your response to this humble request, I shall assume that you have answered your own question by checking what I said, and that this is no longer an issue.

Thank you for helping make Ornery what it is.

Respectfully,

Your bewildered adversary.



[ May 29, 2005, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
AIJEE, Pronounced "Aye-gee"
(Acronym)

Acronym for "As I Just Explained Earlier"

Examples:

AIJEE, p1, means "as I just explained on page 1 of this thread."

AIJEE, pp, means "as I just explained on some previous page of this thread."

AIJEE without a p-number means, "as I just explained above on this page of this thread."

AIJEE, [link], means, as I just explained here, if you would be so kind to follow this link

[ May 29, 2005, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
itaalhs? , pronounced "it-ah-els'

Acronym for "Is There An Argument Lurking Here Somewhere?"

1. Abbreviation for:
quote:
Dear Poster or Respondent,
I am impressed by the conviction of your declaration, but I cannot fathom what you meant to say. Would you please clarify?

Sincerely,

Your confused adversary [Confused]

2. Abbreviation for:
quote:
Dear Poster or Respondent,
I am amused by your conviction, and curious whether you have any arguments or evidence to back up your conclusory assertion.

Sincerely,

Your skeptical respondent [Cool]

3. Abbreviation for:
quote:

Dear Poster or Respondent,
You sound so convincing that I almost believe you seriously mean what you just said. If you really were serious, could you explain what you meant, and illustrate?

Sincerely,

Your amused respondent [Big Grin]



[ May 30, 2005, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If you post something and someone disagrees with your idea, their disagreement does not erase your original statement. There is no need to answer except to clarify or offer new material."

This is the one that matters most and is least considered, says me.

"And there are a couple of us here who are not the least impressed with those who have no credentials at all"

(ahem): 'So sorry sir, but your complete lack of credentials doesn't waive the requirement to at least appear credible.'

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
(ahem): 'So sorry sir, but your complete lack of credentials doesn't waive the requirement to at least appear credible.'

[Big Grin]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think I am going to like this place.
Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Welcome to Ornery. You are wrong.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
Welcome to Ornery. You are wrong.

KE

You mean, I am not going to like this place?
Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wrong again.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No worries, Winkey - people are just giving you our "traditional greeting".
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
No worries, Winkey - people are just giving you our "traditional greeting".

Thanks javelin... I wouldn't feel at home if I wasn't being teased.

I am giving you guys my traditional greeting, too.

Too bad you can't see it.

Just picture in your minds eye, the scene in "Braveheart" where the Scots greet the Brits at the beginning of the Battle of Stirling. [Big Grin]

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You've dealt with kids, grandkids and a husband. You'll have no problem with us, I reckon. Just remember to keep your powder and your wit dry.

[ June 18, 2006, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"and your wit dry."

My fathers side of the family is from England. Is there any other wit besides dry?

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not when properly ser[v]ed.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:
Not when properly ser[v]ed.

You mean, like offering beans with breakfast?
Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
and a wry toast to complete your welcome (this is getting out of control, I think... [Smile] ) -- see you in the trenches...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks Dave... I will look for you on the board.
Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We felt it would be useful to update this rules thread, now that we all have a couple of months under our belts. Any changes are very minor. For the most part, we think the system under which Ornery has operated and been moderated has worked very well. We see no overwhelming need to make major changes, but we are receptive to suggestions and requests, of course.

In the last few days some members have written of concerns about the latest go-round of sniping and disagreeable behavior. We received an email that expressed dire concern that we were not stepping in as moderators on a couple of recent threads. What the overall membership does not know, and should not know, is that we actively and privately email people who we believe to be stepping close to or over the line. We, thus far, have tried to avoid OM posts that say things like "simmer down, folks" or directly chastise some member in-thread. Thus far, troublesome disputes have been quickly resolved within the thread in question, in some cases with a little e-prodding from OM, but for the most part, our members seem able and willing to self-police, if a bit sluggishly this last week or so. The one thread where we felt it necessary to post an admonition had gone south, in our opinion, because of a misunderstanding of the thread's basic premise, which had been cleared up, but warranted our assistance when some posts persisted in the line of error despite the clarification from the thread's originator.

We believe, and hope you all agree, that OrneryMod should not be your babysitter. Lots of fora are run that way; the moderator is a constant, visible presence, jumping into threads when discussions wander off-topic, chastising members, intervening in disputes whether or not the parties are working it out themselves. One of the very best things about Ornery is that we are personally accountable to our fellow members and we self-police. We remind one another when we break the rules. We don't have terrible partisan divisions here because it is rare that our "rights" and "lefts" take sides solely on the basis of affiliation--if a "liberal" member is getting out of line, his fellows make sure they are part of the chorus of voices counseling proper conduct.

"Personal courtesy is the fundamental condition of free discussion, and free discussion is the fundamental condition of democratic government." It's also what makes Ornery great. We can't afford to lose this.

Please--if you find yourself growing too upset or angry to post responsibly, take a step back. If you think a member's argument doesn't make sense, ask for clarification on the point in question. And please, please stop standing on ceremony with the distinction between personal attacks and "attacks on the argument." There are many ways to personalize that do not strictly involve calling another poster mean names. Please avoid those things which degrade our forum's environment. If you think a member's argument is idiotic, follow the writer's rule--show, don't tell. Telling someone their argument is idiotic is not only counter to the spirit of Ornery, but far less illuminating to the rest of us than demonstrating its weaknesses and unfounded assertions.

And remember - there are few, if any, people on the board who haven't screwed up at one time or another and gone over some line. When other members suggest that you need to rethink what you are saying on a thread, don't respond by calling them a hypocrite. Take a look at your posts, and consider stepping back or approaching the point you mean to make differently. A thread full of angry back-and-forth's is the opposite of what makes Ornery great, as is a forum full of defensive and sulky members who refuse to be held accountable for their arguments or behavior. And please also bear in mind that there are many members who do not post, or who are brand new and have not formed an impression of Ornery yet. We are all ill-served by sniping and personalized arguments and emotional digressions, whether actively posting or not.

Make no mistake, though. This is still the Cards' living room and OrneryMod is charged with the final responsibility of maintaining the climate they have requested, and one or the other of us is actively reading at most times. We believe that forcing the OrneryMod to take a more active role in "policing" the forum will be detrimental to Ornery. However, it is each and every member's responsibility to ensure Ornery remains the civil, yet impassioned site for debate it has been. If the members cannot maintain this climate on their own, OrneryMod will be as active and as heavy-handed as we have to be.

We are making a small change to the disciplinary practices, due to a question that came up recently. Mark had laid out a specific progression to suspension, which we more or less will stick with. However, we want to make sure people understand that we may email you or even issue a warning that's outside this chain--meaning that said mail is not necessarily part of a path leading to suspension. We will be explicit if the behavior we are warning about will lead to suspension, and what the path to that suspension will look like (along with how to avoid it). Thus, generally you will have more than one "gentle" warning before you are suspended for some particular offense, but if it's egregious enough that one more instance will warrant suspension (or even banning, in particularly outrageous circumstances), we'll tell you so. Also, it's quite possible that due to what we decide are extraordinary circumstances, we will have to discard the normal process.

While all decisions will be made jointly by both mods, we must keep the process of maintaining the forum's integrity elastic enough to encompass unforeseen and unforeseeable circumstances.

We hope that you will ask questions and share your perspectives with us, whether on the board or via the OrneryMod email account. Like you, we want Ornery to continue to be the unique place it is and be the best site of its kind online.

Thank you all for your continuing contributions and efforts on behalf of our community here.

OrneryMod(s)

Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ornery doesn't self-regulate perfectly. Don't be shy about sending an email when somebody starts stepping out of line. It helps prevent it from blooming into something worse.
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1