Unmoderated subforum. Cross over to the dark side!

So I've been seeing a few people lament being unable to tell so-and-so he's an idiot, or tell everyone they're idiots, or, I dunno, strip naked and gallop around the room smacking their own ass and yelling "you like horsey? you like?". As one does.

On a few sites I've seen a separate subforum where some -- repeat, some -- of the rules were suspended. Mostly the ones prohibiting personal attacks, profanity, and adult/NSFW content. Threats, doxxing, all the serious stuff, still banhammerable. And every time you clicked on that subforum to navigate to it a box popped up asking you to input your age with a message something like "you're about to see some sh*t, don't say we didn't warn you".

Thoughts?

People keep missing the point.

I don't care about personal insults. What do I care if some idiot I don't know calls me stupid?

What worries me is behavior that gunk up the works of a smoothly functioning board.

1. Responding to every post the same way. Think of BornofGod or hari. Soon their posts become like stones in a river and the conversation simply flows around them. But noobs keep getting drawn in and that disrupts threads. The board is for debate, not obsessive agendas.

2. Responding to every "type" with insult. Maybe they hate religion, or blacks, or women, or democrats, every post they make to such a person, as soon as he becomes aware of the type, becomes unwarranted insults to that person. Its isn't quite fair, say to a female, to respond, don't be so sensitive, when I'm a guy and usually free from such prejudice. No minority deserves to need thicker skins than majorities.

3. Spamming your obsession. Like posting multiple threads only meant to insult or shout your obsession. 26 threads on some variation of, "Are Liberals Stupid?" In 6 hours is spam that clogs up the board. Thread titles are not to be manifestos. Debate your obsession, not club people with them.

But everyone seems to go straight to name-calling. That is usually minor stuff. I've been called everything in the book. Never bothered me, as long as we can still debate.

So I have no issue with your idea. But if you do it, and some bozo begins spamming that thread at 50 flame threads a minute, or attacking any physically handicapped person who posts there with physically challenged specific insults, no one can go running to the mods.

But the moment it spills over into the main forum, I will have a huge problem with it. And I'm almost certain it will.

Why not give the Chimps a place to fling poo so they don't do it here? Make a room called "the zoo"

This isn't about your issues as you described them. Which I agree with btw. I think some people are just interested in blunter dirtier debate where they can unleash. They don't want a safe place. They want an exciting unsafe place. We already have unmoderated debates. But some people who are not interested in formal debates would be interested in the same concept.

Spilling over into the main forums is a genuine concern and would depend. On the forums where I saw this implemented, people were used to the dynamic of leaving their sh*t in the unmoderated forum and they understood they'd be penalized for bringing it into the main forum. Once that status quo was established it was respected. There was a real iron wall there. But it would be the moderators who have to put up with the growing pains before this status quo is established, putting out fires that spill over into the main forum and whatnot. Certainly wouldn't blame 'em for not wanting to even touch it.

Didnt we have something like this on DDO every once in a while called 'official flamewar threads' or am I confusing that with what every Truthbox thread inevitably turned into? 

I agree with everything you said. The nature of the religion forum and the politics form is already insulting and offensive. One side thinks the other side is killing the world. That is most definitely heated and will always turn into some kind of insult in a heated exchange. That is what the Coc doesn't take into account... the two forums that are already offensive in nature. But from what i am gathering, the mods will judge each situation accordingly. I hope it is that way or else even i may be banned one day bc i have called others ignorant or deluded. Not in a malicious way or a threatening way... just heated debate. Even you and i have crossed that path, but never tipped over into what someone would see as hateful or malicious. It just happens in these two forums. So i agree with you in that minor insults should be overlooked. But of course things like Hari writes or even what i saw Bully write to Jane need to have a consequence. That kind of behavior should be what we look for and kick off this site. 

In regards to your spamming concern. I can see how you can construe that as spamming but i always thought spamming was consistently pushing your topic to the top to disrupt forums. If someone asks 10 questions and leaves it alone, i don't think that is spamming. 20 questions in 6 hours is a bit much, and the site is justified in not wanting that... but, if he just left them alone... everyone's thread would eventually come back to the top bc the person isn't spamming if not pushing the thread back to the top. In any case, this infraction should only be a warning... if not heeded, then punishment should be warranted. I think you understand that, but you may not agree with my definition of spamming. 

I do not support the existence of such a forum. I fear it may lead to enmity that may spill over into other fora. Ultimately, it falls to Mike to make the call.

You right. But you surprise us in that it seems you don't know willows. He would keep posting to his own threads, bumping them back up the line. A quarter of his threads dying without a single response.

And 26 in six hours is only what I counted, he topped that in later hours. Mike was 100% right to ban him, and if bsh1 would not have banned him, then Mike will know his choice of mod was a mistake. Given willows recent comments on DDO, it is obvious that Mike's decision was correct.

We are making this a bigger problem than it is. Guys who behave like willows, bully(Lunatic), or hari are rare, 99% of the time all it takes a a warning from a mod. The problem on DDO was that no mod did anything, not a single thing. So the 1% of toxic trolls seemed like 10%, and enabled and encouraged others to become toxic, either in self-defense or sense of revenge.

It is an interesting idea, but indulging or condoning such toxic behavior anywhere on the site will be a mistake.

Thank you. I agree.

But as no one has formally asked for it, all this is moot.

I don't avoid calling people idiots because it is against the rules. I avoid calling people idiots because it is not a very charitable thing to do.

You are a rare one then MoPac. Charity is sorely lacking online.

Chapter 13. I get it.

Like i said, if he keeps bumping it up to the top i agree that is spam. But i know Willows as much as you do. I haven't noticed him do that. Maybe 1 or 2 of them, but maybe he just really wanted an answer to the ones he bumps up. I've never seen him bump up all his threads in a spam way. But in any case, he should understand now that it is something that is not tolerated. I found a problem in that there was no warning. Warn him, if it continues, then ban. That is the right way to do it. His ban was due only to posting a bunch of questions. I might one day want to ask a bunch of questions...who knows. The point is that doesn't seem like a ban worthy thing to do and without a warning i would have never known either.  So... if he decides to come back and continue to break rules... i will personally report it and be okay with the consequences it deserves. Things need to be fair... it can't play out that anyone that gets a report gets a ban. There needs to be steps, and with a moderation team now, i am sure there will be steps... and you have to agree that is the responsible way to proceed.

You are polite in the sense that you do not result to vulgarities or derogatories. But you are far from charitable.

It might not seem that way. I am sure I have room for improvement.

It would not be charitable for me to make declarations about my charity.

Which would be an interesting observation if I ever claimed charity as my motivation as you have. I'm just noting that this moral high ground you're trying to stake out isn't as high as you might think.

Pardon me if I interpret what you are saying as insecurity.

I certainly can't stop you from making incorrect choices. I've just found that people touting the principle of charity are usually the ones least likely to actually adhere to it. For a person that admits they are fallible, you seem more concerned about pointing the finger back at me, rather than fixing your own mistakes.

Well, thats like, just your opinion, man.

It's an objective observation. I will note that assuming I speak from insecurity isn't a particularly charitable interpretation, is it?

Charity is not an entitlement, otherwise it wouldn't be charity.

I am being honest with you. You look insecure to me. It really doesn't matter to me whether you think I am being charitable or not. I will be honest with you, and sometimes true words are not kind words.

And I do make a very conscious effort to not be mean. Imagine for a second that I truly believe the position I argue for. That my God is The Truth. What would do you imagine people who deny my God look like from my perspective?

If you could put yourself in my position for a moment, I'm sure you are imaginitive enough to see that I have to practice a great deal of restraint. I am, after all, debating people for sometimes many pages in a row about whether or not The Truth exists.

I don't think it takes a particularly brilliant person to understand how that looks from my perspective.

Well, willows was not just asking questions. He was spamming. On debate sites, you ask questions and then address the answers. He doesn't wait for answers. He has said he doesn't care for answers. He just keep posting new threads while the old ones die unanswered.

How many "Are Christians crazy? "Are Christians stupid? "Are Christians dumb? "Are Christians deluded? "Are Christians liars? "Are Christians ugly? threads can one post in succession before you will admit he isn't looking for debate?

Have you seen his reaction? He's full of venom, unapologetic about his troll spam, and has condemned Mike, Dart, and all DDO members who post here.

I disagree that he deserved a notice. He is aware that what he does is trolling and flaming. A person deliberately acting like a jerk does not deserve notice. Did he give Mike notice he was about to troll his site? I have no objection to notices, but Dart did not owe him a notice, and did no wrong in not giving him one.

Happily, he has said he will never return here. So perhaps your efforts at advocacy would be better spent on someone more worthy of your support.

I'll spend my time advocating for anyone i think was unfairly punished. I concede that his posting style could come off as spam, so i think a warning not to do it is justified. If he does come back and continues with said behavior, i agree with punishments. The debate bw us right now isn't really Willows. I know him and that he can be very trolly (which i don't know if i agree deserves punishment if the trolling isn't malicious). We are disagreeing on punishment methods. I think every minor to medium offense should always have a warning before action is taken. Bc these are offenses that some may not know is against the rules. I feel this situation is one of those scenarios. Like i said, i wouldn't have known that was considered spam bc of my way of defining what spam is so i could have even done it. So, in these kind of situations it's good to get a warning. In any case, I'm done with this situation, i said my peace and i feel the situation was handled properly in the end. 

Denial of The Truth is not a position worthy of consideration, it is blasphemy against The Holy Spirit, and truly an abominable position to hold. 

Really, anyone who holds such a position is deserving of mockery for even entertaining such foolishness.

I certainly couldn't take such a position seriously, it is self defeating.

How charitable of you.

One who denies The Truth has embraced arbitrariness, and for me to entertain that would in itself be an embrace of arbitrariness. Charity rejoices in The Truth, not wickedness. 

No, it would not be charitable for me to encourage someone to be arbitrary. 

I certainly will not be guilted into condoning the doctrines of devils for the sake of charity.