Membership Discussion of Possible Change to Rule #12

[Steve Ashton]

In another thread a discussion of a possible change to rule #12 was being discussed.

I have moved the posts dealing with that discussion here so it may continue with the full membership's participation.

[Steve Ashton]

In posts 18 and 19 to this thread Tobus and Mookien asked direct questions.


The best answer we can give is that the staff have been aware for some time that a re-write of Rule #12 may clear up any apparent confusion. This is why we brought this to the general membership. We would like your input, suggestions and comments.

[Steve Ashton]

If I may respond to piperdbh and add to mookien's comment.

It would be only common courtesy, that if a thread is about one topic, others would respect the original intent and refrain from taking the thread off onto another topic.

It would also be courteous that if someone wishes to discuss a second topic that they start their own new thread.



Now a little insight. In the world of forum administers and moderators there are some common topics of discussion. One of these is the subject of trolls.
A forum troll is defined as:
"Someone who posts inflammatory or controversial posts with the intent of provoking others into an emotional response."
Trolls love to push people's buttons and sit back and watch the fur fly.

It is common when a troll is confronted to respond with "Ah, jee, we're just having a bit of fun" or "The juicy threads are the most fun." Trolls love the juicy threads because they are always emotionally heated. Trolls love to sit back and watch the havoc they have started or encouraged.

There is another strategy of trolls. If a thread gets a warning shot across the bow by a moderator the troll will change the topic of the thread so it is not shut down for violating the rules. The idea behind this strategy is that as long as the thread is still open and active all the 'juicy' posts are still there. It is sort of like repeating yourself without actually having to post again.

Please understand that I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am not saying anyone who participated in this thread is a troll. I'm only explaining why I asked my question.

In the end X Marks has always been about respect.
There is the respect we show for our fellow members. Even though we come from different parts of the world have different political or religious beliefs we continue to respect others beliefs. This respect of our fellow members is why we do not bring our personal religious or political beliefs here to X Marks.
We also respect the kilt. The kilt is the chosen topic of this forum. It is what brought us all here and what we come here to discuss. Our respect for the kilt is why we do not post up-kilt photos or post in a way that shows the kilt as the subject of ridicule.
We also respect our forum itself. We try to keep this forum focused on our subject and not allow it to become a free-for-all. We understand that the kilt is not all there is to life but we also realize and respect the others who want to talk about the kilt by not taking the forum off topic.

So back to my question in post 91 of this thread. How far off-topic do you feel the Moderators should allow a thread to go before they are forced to step in?

Do you want X Marks to become a totally open, free to post whatever you want, type of forum?
Do you want X Marks to be run like some other forums out there where yelling and screaming are the norm? Where people feel that the internet is free and so they can say and do anything they like?

Where should the limits be? Where should we set some boundaries?

[Joe I]

I want to say, that I posted this thead because 1. kilts are mentioned in a news article, 2. I thought that it would interest the people here. Not to start any controversy. I do think that in a normal conversation, ppl will mention other things. I have been to sites where I have been cussed at, cut down for no reason other than ppl know that fingers cannot go though the web to throttle a person for their rudeness. X markers are not rude! Even when they dissagree they/we are polite.
Thank you.

[mookien]

... So back to my question in post 91 of this thread. How far off-topic do you feel the Moderators should allow a thread to go before they are forced to step in?
...

Steve: As owner of the forum, ultimately it is your responsibility, with input for whomever you choose, to define the rules and set the boundaries. The longevity and success of XMTS is an indication that over the years you have done a pretty good job.

My view on "topic shift" largely mirrors what I infer from recent comments by Tobus. If the thread is in a kilt-related forum, then perhaps the rule(s) should be more strictly observed as described by JD in post #10. On the other hand, if the thread is in a "Miscellaneous" category, then as long as the more prescriptive rules are being observed, the general philosophy on "topic shift" should be something akin to Whoopie!

I tend to view threads as conversations between like-minded (in interests, anyway) people, and such conversations often wander. That is a good thing. If ever I get bored with a "new" topic, I can, and often do, simply go away and find another interesting thread.

Like I wrote in an earlier post, you can't keep a good thread down, and this one is proves it. If collectively we decide that it is at a dead end, or boring, or beating a dead horse, then I think we should change the subject.

John

[robthehiker]

I don't see any trolling here. The thread evolved, touched other topics, and generally remained interesting.

[xman]

Excellent discussion ladies and gentlemen.

I agree with the addition. "With the exception of ..." to the wording of Rule #12. I might also suggest that rather than, "will be subject to removal", perhaps, "may be subject to removal", would allow a little wriggle room for the thread to drift into friendly banter territory so long as the spirit of the rules are kept in mind. This may or may not be appreciated by the mods, but it would seem to be more accurately reflective of actual practice.