Please... I'm not going to be running around like the Spanish Inquisition (
woosh! ?), cracking my whip or publicly nailing anyone's foot to the deck.When have I ever done that? Basically I intend to enforce the existing rules a little tighter than usual, giving less benefit of the doubt and also try step in with a word or two to calm things down
before things escalate to the point of nastiness. In cases where the offence is very minor or nebulous, I'll ask the user to edit their own post to make their point clearer without the possibility of offence being taken by a third party.
Stratisfear wrote:
I suppose I'm just stating the obvious if I say we'd be looking for consistency most of all.
Understood. For my part, I can assure you I
try to be fair and consistent, but it's impossible to always appear so from everyone's perspective. Two users at odds with one another each have their own perspective and I have a third. So in settling a dispute there is always going to be at least one person who does not agree with my decision - and sometimes that might be you.
I also handle
every single incident - many of which, only the participants are aware of - and these incidents may influence my future actions in some way. Sometimes I may have my own reasons for handling something in a particular way - reasons that operate on a larger "macro" or somehow politic level.
There have also been instances where a particularly defamatory or libellous comment is left intact while the offended party investigates legal recourse (defamation, libel and slander being after all legal terms, not to be used), while PMs, emails and even telephone conversations flurry about behind the scenes. So trust me, you do not always know what the full score is.
I also admit that sometimes my mood has an influence on things - it's hard to remain 100% objective and balanced at all times. I can only really promise to try to do so - and live up to that promise as best as I am able.
So, if there are going to be instant bans
Well, there have always been instant bans - I add probably five to ten a week to the ban list (which currently stands at more than 230 individuals). It's just they are rarely regular posters and they are usually done in the early hours of the morning so few others see the offence or the punishment.
Secondly, in the interests of clarity, I'd like to know how you will define the "ganging up" you mention. Let's say I come on here one day and say something that offends a good portion of the membership. Is only one person allowed to respond, otherwise the original poster (me) is automatically given protection he/she doesn't deserve?
If someone has offended you or others enough that it creates the desire to publicly disembowel them,
why are you not reporting it? Then I would take action and the matter would be settled. Instead of this a number of people respond with comments and together they all
add to the first post in lowering the tone. Even worse - some take that as an open invitation to snipe at the original offender on other threads, lowering their tone too. Someone may say something imprudent and cause ire (we have all done it), but that does not give anyone else the right to shout insults and follow them around making snide comments - that's schoolyard behaviour
and amounts to nothing less than bullying, irrespective of what the original offender did or said.
Occasionally someone says something that is mildly offensive and others step in to say "hey - you can't say that!". I have no problem with this - it makes my job easier after all. But there is a big difference between that and some of the behaviour I have seen lately.
