[Boots]

I need to know how banning works around here. If I'm one offense away from a temporary ban, and I behave like an angel for a year am I still one offense away or has my angelic behavior bought me a little room? If good behavior does buy grace how long does it take etc?

[Boots]

Make a so called low content post and someone's there within the hour to issue a warning etc. Ask an honest question in S&C like we're apparently supposed to do and there is no answer for days. Perhaps that's why people post inappropriate questions in the debate etc.

[xasop]

I don't think there are any concrete answers to questions like these. It is largely up to moderator discretion.

That said, we generally aim to reserve bans for people who clearly are not listening to warnings. They aren't intended to be handed out as punishment, but rather as a corrective measure. Bearing that in mind, as long as you aren't being an unreasonable tool and repeatedly posting the same garbage you've been warned about, you should be fine.

[Boots]

Thnx.

Sometimes I am an unreasonable tool but usually not for more than a post or two every once in awhile. So I hope the moderator's discretion will guide him to not ban me for making one unreasonable tool-like post because I made some tool-like posts months earlier.

[Pete Svarrior]

Make a so called low content post and someone's there within the hour to issue a warning etc.

afaik most warnings are in response to someone¹ reporting a post (which spams the mods' e-mail, among other things). I don't think it's fair to compare simple janitorial duties to a question on how these duties are performed.

Sometimes I am an unreasonable tool but usually not for more than a post or two every once in awhile. So I hope the moderator's discretion will guide him to not ban me for making one unreasonable tool-like post because I made some tool-like posts months earlier.

Looking at our ban history, there's no precedent for you to worry. Honestly, it's not always easy to put into words, but there's a clear difference between someone who occasionally spits out a slightly rule-bendy post, someone who's deliberately trying to make the forum worse, and someone who's just so obtuse that they don't understand the purpose of this place. The rules and their execution are intended to remedy the latter two groups.

Edit: That said, looking at your post history, you should really start paying attention to the unwritten "thou shalt not shitpost in upper fora threads" rule (more formally known as rules 3 and 6). It's what you got warned for just a while ago, and here you are doing it again. If you really feel the need to describe how smug you're feeling at a given point in time, or how unreasonable Thork is (don't worry, we all feel that one from time to time), why not take it to CN/AR?

¹ - probably me

[Boots]

Make a so called low content post and someone's there within the hour to issue a warning etc.

afaik most warnings are in response to someone¹ reporting a post (which spams the mods' e-mail, among other things). I don't think it's fair to compare simple janitorial duties to a question on how these duties are performed.

Sometimes I am an unreasonable tool but usually not for more than a post or two every once in awhile. So I hope the moderator's discretion will guide him to not ban me for making one unreasonable tool-like post because I made some tool-like posts months earlier.

Looking at our ban history, there's no precedent for you to worry. Honestly, it's not always easy to put into words, but there's a clear difference between someone who occasionally spits out a slightly rule-bendy post, someone who's deliberately trying to make the forum worse, and someone who's just so obtuse that they don't understand the purpose of this place. The rules and their execution are intended to remedy the latter two groups.

Edit: That said, looking at your post history, you should really start paying attention to the unwritten "thou shalt not shitpost in upper fora threads" rule (more formally known as rules 3 and 6). It's what you got warned for just a while ago, and here you are doing it again. If you really feel the need to describe how smug you're feeling at a given point in time, or how unreasonable Thork is (don't worry, we all feel that one from time to time), why not take it to CN/AR?

¹ - probably me

Well I understand the rule and even support it.

But sometimes "taking it to CN/AR" just doesn't work the same way as posting a quick response in the thread.

That's why.

But while we're discussing, let me add this: I really do think there is a bit of a double standard, where you and junker et al can make snarky comments intended to put some angry globularist or noob in their place, but if we make similar comments it's called shit posting and we get ban warnings.

I realize it's a privately owned site and if the owner wants to allow double standards he's perfectly at liberty to do so.

Anyway, I understand the rule but IMO if it's enforced too closely the forum becomes very dry.

[Pete Svarrior]

I really do think there is a bit of a double standard, where you and junker et al can make snarky comments intended to put some angry globularist or noob in their place, but if we make similar comments it's called shit posting and we get ban warnings.

I'm in a terrible position to make any assessment of this, so I won't say anything with too much commitment. That said, my feeling is that what matters is the ratio of snark to content. To me, it's not a question of "you guys do it too!" The people who actually end up getting banned tend to be the sort who visit every thread they can find to state nothing more than "I think the Earth is round and the FE'ers are unreasonable".

I can easily believe that there is some bias, but I think you're exaggerating it.

But sometimes "taking it to CN/AR" just doesn't work the same way as posting a quick response in the thread.

That's the point. It's not supposed to work the same way.

We don't want for our upper-fora threads to be littered with stuff like "The answer to your FET question is that the Earth is round haha checkmate", "lol betcha they'll never answer this one!!!" or "This thread is now about undergarments". If you want to say these things, say them in CN/AR where they'll be seen by our regulars, but not by The Googles. Or, if you really want to make sure the person you're addressing sees it, send them a PM.

Anyway, I understand the rule but IMO if it's enforced too closely the forum becomes very dry.

There are plenty of places on the Internet whose point is to be more funny, whimsical, or what-have-you. We're not one of those places (save for AR/CN). You may call it dry if you want, but the way I see it, your use case is just incompatible with ours.

[Boots]

Fair enough. Are you gonna answer my post in the numbers game?

[AATW]

Rather than start a new thread I'll just post this in here. As this section is for suggestions.
My suggestion is this: Lighten up, guys.
Seriously.
I'm now on my "3rd Warning" apparently, two of them were for light-hearted comments.
I haven't been abusive to anyone. I haven't spammed. I haven't bumped threads. I just made a couple of jokes and now I'm being threatened with a ban.
I am a moderator on another board (about a completely different subject) so I have some experience here.
I have never been on a board where making jokes could get you banned.
And if you're going to make a rule like this, be consistent. Why wasn't Tom warned for this?

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8460.0

Tom wasn't warned, the person who responded to him was. Overall, I don't think either post warranted a warning.

[Dr David Thork]

Tom has a history of posting quality content. For every little joke he makes to keep himself entertained, he makes 9 other posts all on point. Why would the moderators want to alienate such a valued member of the community? It is't like we have too many flat earthers here and we want to thin out their numbers.

And then you get someone who comes out of the blue, will post for a few months and make lots of jokes destroying the quality of upper forum threads turning them into a farse. Of course those people will be kept on a shorter leash. Do the time, earn respect and you get more leeway. It is a sensible system.

[AATW]

Tom has a history of posting quality content. For every little joke he makes to keep himself entertained, he makes 9 other posts all on point. Why would the moderators want to alienate such a valued member of the community? It is't like we have too many flat earthers here and we want to thin out their numbers.

And then you get someone who comes out of the blue, will post for a few months and make lots of jokes destroying the quality of upper forum threads turning them into a farse. Of course those people will be kept on a shorter leash. Do the time, earn respect and you get more leeway. It is a sensible system.

That post actually makes sense. BUT, I have made 127 posts on here almost all of them have been sensible and contributed to the debates. The part I've highlighted is absolutely not what I have done.
I made a whole thread in FE Debate and spent quite some time on it ("Somewhere Beyond The Sea"), it got no responses and it would have been tempting to bump it myself but I didn't.
So while yes, I am relatively new I feel I have shown myself to be a (mostly) sensible poster. A couple of jokes should not warrant threats of a ban.
From my experience of modding other boards, you get a feel for new posters pretty quickly. It's not hard to spot the ones who are just there to cause trouble - I see them sign up here fairly often.
I think it's pretty clear I'm not one of them.

[juner]

I just made a couple of jokes and now I'm being threatened with a ban... I have never been on a board where making jokes could get you banned.

The upper FE fora are the most strictly moderated. Jokes are still allowed as long as you have other content contributing to the topic (you did not).

Most people understand this after the first or second warning. They adjust their posting behavior appropriately in many cases. There are other fora where you can meme and shitpost; the FE boards aren't the place for it. We give people plenty of chances to learn how this place works, it is up to you if you want to stick around or not.

[AATW]

The upper FE fora are the most strictly moderated. Jokes are still allowed as long as you have other content contributing to the topic (you did not).

Nor did Tom in the thread I linked to above. Why was he not warned but the person who replied to him was? If you're going to be this strict then at least be consistent.

Your rules are very vague. And actually that is not a bad thing because good moderation does involve judgement calls. And one of those it to discern the difference between people who are here to spam, be abusive, troll or whatever, and people who are basically here to debate the issues and may throw in the odd light-hearted comment. It's pretty clear I'm the latter, or should be by now.

[Pete Svarrior]

My suggestion is this: Lighten up, guys.

No. This forum is for a different kind of posting from what some people here have to offer. We will not be changing this place to suit the whims of a few newcomers who most likely won't be here 2 months from now.

If you want to engage here for a bit longer than "haha erf is rund xDDDD explain coriolis bye," you will need to adapt to the culture of the forum. If you want to post haha-funny-lol-memes, do it in Complete Nonsense. If that doesn't work out for you - there are plenty of other places on the Web that may be better suited to your needs. Perhaps I could recommend Reddit?

And if you're going to make a rule like this, be consistent. Why wasn't Tom warned for this?

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8460.0

Tom wasn't warned, the person who responded to him was. Overall, I don't think either post warranted a warning.

I think you missed one post in this string. Supaluminous opens the off-topic exchange with his comment of

Should I be wary about being thrown out if people start getting irritated with me for making too much sense?

Perhaps Tom shouldn't have entertained his shitposting, but nobody's perfect. Supa, in this case, is very clearly the instigator.

It's not hard to spot the ones who are just there to cause trouble - I see them sign up here fairly often.
I think it's pretty clear I'm not one of them.

You would have a much easier time making your case if one of your most recent posts in FED was not this:

I have to say, I would like to buy a beer for the person who stuck an actual pole in the south pole. So funny.

There's one at the North Pole too




resized image -junker

I have been warned for "low content" posting. That term isn't even defined in the rules

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=977.0

Cleared of all charges? 

At a glance, you're breaking rules 3, 5 and 6.

You should also remember that the rules are accompanied by the manifesto. Of particular importance here is the note about moderator discretion. Are you disruptive to the forum? If you are (and yes, you are), then your arguments about how you think the rules should be interpreted are meaningless.

[juner]

Cleaned up off-topic avatar posts and moved to The Lounge.

[supaluminus]

And if you're going to make a rule like this, be consistent. Why wasn't Tom warned for this?

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8460.0

Tom wasn't warned, the person who responded to him was. Overall, I don't think either post warranted a warning.

I think you missed one post in this string. Supaluminous opens the off-topic exchange with his comment of

Should I be wary about being thrown out if people start getting irritated with me for making too much sense?

Perhaps Tom shouldn't have entertained his shitposting, but nobody's perfect. Supa, in this case, is very clearly the instigator.

That sounds reasonably fair to me. I'm glad you at least understood why that was a valid question to ask, rather than snubbing the question outright.

[AATW]

No. This forum is for a different kind of posting from what some people here have to offer. We will not be changing this place to suit the whims of a few newcomers who most likely won't be here 2 months from now.

You don't have to change the place, I'm just suggesting using a bit of common sense and discerning the difference between people who are here to spam or be abusive and people who aren't. From the vast majority of my posts it's clear that I'm here to debate.

If you want to engage here for a bit longer than "haha erf is rund xDDDD explain coriolis bye," you will need to adapt to the culture of the forum.

Which is absolutely not what I've done but yes, I accept one should adapt to the culture of a forum.

If you want to post haha-funny-lol-memes, do it in Complete Nonsense.

I don't want to do that. As you know if you've looked at my posts - which you have as you have replied to some. I think that recent post is the only time I have done it.

I think you missed one post in this string.

No, I didn't miss that. But if you're going to be consistent then Tom should have been warned too. Your manifesto dictates consistency ("Equivalence of all members"). As I said, I don't think either should have been warned. Tom's comment was pretty funny, a bit of humour here and there is no bad thing on any forum.

You would have a much easier time making your case if one of your most recent posts in FED was not this

Yes. I think the key words there are "one of". That is the post which I was warned for. And if a lot of my posts were like that then I'd think "fair enough, I should tone it down a bit", but very few of mine are and anyone who has looked at my posts would see that I am mostly here to debate stuff.

At a glance, you're breaking rules 3, 5 and 6.

"rules are meant for the guidance of the wise and the obedience of fools..." - Douglas Bader

Of particular importance here is the note about moderator discretion.

Well, this is what I'm advocating. Some discretion. Applying rules blindly without that is not good moderation - as I said above, I speak as someone who moderates another forum. I know from experience that there is no way of moderating which keeps everyone happy. To me moderation is like being a sports referee, if you're too lenient then things get out of hand, if you blow the whistle at every single thing then the game doesn't flow, so you have to use a bit of common sense.

Whether I am disruptive is subjective but I'm struggling to understand how you can assert that I am. I've posted a couple of jokey posts but the vast majority of my posts have been debate. I'd like to understand how you feel I'm being disruptive.

[Tom Bishop]

I suppose what I posted could be taken as a joke. It could also be taken as a serious response to concerns of a Round Earther worrying about expressing themselves in a Flat Earth group. It is really up to the reader to interpret what was meant by that assertion of not to worry about it.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to incorporate some humor; just make sure that you are addressing the point of the topic and are providing content. I don't think the moderators would warn a poster for incorporating some level of humor if the majority of the post was on point.

[supaluminus]

I suppose what I posted could be taken as a joke. It could also be taken as a serious response to concerns of a Round Earther worrying about expressing themselves in a Flat Earth group. It is really up to the reader to interpret what was meant by that assertion of not to worry about it.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to incorporate some humor; just make sure that you are addressing the point of the topic and are providing content. I don't think the moderators would warn a poster for incorporating some level of humor if the majority of the post was on point.

'Course we could just ask you what was meant by that assertion, but then you'd have to surrender the interpretive "wiggle room," so to speak.

Is the majority of this post on point, or off point?

[Pete Svarrior]

But if you're going to be consistent then Tom should have been warned too

I disagree. Tom has done nothing wrong, aside from responding to a shitpost. Your idea of "consistency" is to punish both the bully and the bullied, or to let them both go. Unlikely to be taken seriously around here.

You don't have to change the place, I'm just suggesting using a bit of common sense and discerning the difference between people who are here to spam or be abusive and people who aren't. From the vast majority of my posts it's clear that I'm here to debate.

Sorry, I disagree again. From my perspective, most of your posts make it clear that you haven't quite understood this place, and the three posts you got warned for justify the warnings. I can also see a handful of posts that, if someone were to report them, would likely generate more warnings. So, as far as I can tell, the mods may have looked the other way a couple of times.

Common sense has evidently been used, and priority has been given to upholding our current culture. If you dislike the culture... well, you know my stance on that.

And if a lot of my posts were like that then I'd think "fair enough, I should tone it down a bit"

No, if a lot of your posts were like that, you would have been banned by now.

Look, I get it. You think the rules are harsh. Something something dura lex sed lex. The upper fora are meant to be kept clean. It's what everyone searching for Flat Earth information sees first. If someone previously unintroduced to the subject decides to look into it, we want them to see meaningful discussions, not someone posting images of Pooh or snarky quotes.

If you want to post here, get over yourself, and put your "funny" remarks in the appropriate board. Your warnings will soon be forgotten (moderator discretion!), and you'll be a-OK.

as I said above, I speak as someone who moderates another forum. I know from experience [...]

I'm sorry to hear that you don't like how things work here, but I'm not impressed with your repeated attempts at asserting authority. I don't care about your self-proclaimed credentials, I care about your arguments. And right now, your arguments boil down to "I don't want to change this place but you should change this place"