Re: Rich Burlew



No 33 Secretary wrote:

Werebat <ranpoirier@xxxxxxx> wrote in Vc9tg.67496$ZW3.44751@dukeread04:">news:Vc9tg.67496$ZW3.44751@dukeread04:



Nikolas Landauer wrote:

Jasin Zujovic wrote:


terry.notaniceperson@xxxxxxxxx says...


Where are these rules?

Never mind, found them.

They do seem a bit... expansive. In fact, I have this
little impulse to agree heartily that the rules are
bull***, in hope you'll try to stir up trouble, since
that might be fun to see...

Except that every single one of them is probably
in response to specific incidents that have
disrpute the forum.

Does that mean you agree with the rules...


I'm not Terry, but I do agree with Rich's rules. I've been on a lot of
fora, including some high-volume ones, and his rules shoot tons of the
problems they are all always subject to right in the ass.

Since high-volume message boards are actually moderated, there is a
desire on the parts of the owners and moderators to keep them from
becoming flame-infested swamps akin to the high-volume Usenet
newsgroups. Some people agree with that desire, and some disagree. If
a person is unhappy with authority or with strong controls, that person
should post to Usenet, not to high-volume message boards.

Oh, and webcomic message boards are a whole other breed... They seem
to attract some of the worst types of message board users and posters,
and every one of Rich's rules addresses some horror story I've seen or
heard of from other webcomic message boards (the "no copyrighted
avatars" one, for instance, is probably directly addressing the dispute
on the PA fora that ended up causing Squidi to quit his webcomic).

Some rules are no doubt beneficial -- but when it gets to the point where you can easily, unintentionally break two or three in a simple post, and you feel like you need a kobold lawyer to proofread your post before you click "send", it's a bit excessive, wouldn't you say?


Equally excessive as when the owner of the forum feels the need to have so many nitpicky rules.

Forum denizens are generally a lot more retarded even than Usenet.

In my case they are actually attracting and tempting just the sort of behavior he is trying to avoid.


For about one post. Then you'll be banned, and that's that.

It doesn't have to be. Surely you know this.


Surely I'm not the only one. I have noticed that the tone of several apparent regulars on his forum has gotten a bit passive-aggressive since he imposed his six-ton authoritah.


Sounds like the forum might go away, then.

I realize that part of my rankling springs from an inherent dislike on my part of moderated groups. I don't think moderation should be banned but I do believe that a lot is lost when moderation worms its way in to a discussion group (a great example of this are the moderated vs. unmoderated feminist newsgroups).


Problem is, among the things lost are a lot of problems that drive even more people away. An unmoderated forum is Usenet, except with more liability on the part of the owner (since Usenet doesn't have an owner to blame).

True. And I can see that moderation does drive some problems away. I just personally feel that it inevitably throws out something else that is more valuable than losing the problems is worth.


I understand that Rich's forum is his own space and his rules are his right, but I have zero desire to post there and get "nabbed" for every little thing I say until I'm booted. If I do post, it will be for the express purpose of annoying the mods and getting punted off of the forum (but not too quickly -- this sort of thing must be savored).


Heh. I suspect it will be very quick.

There are so many things a person can do, Terry, to get under someone's sk... Why am I telling YOU this? You already know.


This is a direct result of his crazymaking and stifling rules policies. Cause and effect.


Indeed. That's his intent. To identify the assholes who disrupt thing for everyone else, and get rid of them.

True, but the method here is creating the problem it is designed to combat.

- Ron ^*^

.