Re: Rich Burlew

Werebat <ranpoirier@xxxxxxx> wrote in
DDatg.67502$ZW3.26909@dukeread04:">news:DDatg.67502$ZW3.26909@dukeread04:



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.

Indeed. I know it, but don't care what it _has_ to be. That is what _is_.


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.

And therefore, you'll be happier in an unmoderated place, like usenet. It
is inherent to the nature of a web forum that if there's any real traffic,
moderation is absolutely necessary.


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.

Indeed. Think about it. If *I* wonder why it's worth the bother, why aren't
you?


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.

That implies the problem does not already exist. This is incorrect. The
problem already exists, and creates an environment that is untenable
without change. And frankly, any efforts you make will likely be lost in
the noise. You won't get booted by someone who is pissed off, you'll get
botted by someone who is bored. Or by an automated script. Either way,
whoever makes the decision will only barely be aware you exist.

All because you have a problem with someone else setting whatever rules
they want for the use of their property.

--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
.