Parzival | 25 May 2010 4:59 p.m. PST |
One the "Shame!!!" thread referring to the OFM's Dawghousing— TMP link — venusboy3 said
I dare the invertebrate who pushed the button on him to step forward and own his deed
C'mon, an accused man deserves to meet his accuser!
I'm betting it's some bottom feeder who just lurks and never posts. I think this calls for a poll. So, what does everyone think. Should the identity as to whom pushes the Complaint Button on a particular offense be a matter of public record on TMP? Choices: The accuser's identity should be anonymous. The accuser's identity should always be public record. The accuser's identity should be revealed only to the accused, always. The accuser's identity should be public record, except in cases where the accused is banned or blocked as a result. The accuser's identity should be revealed to the accused, except in cases where the accused is banned or blocked as a result. (If one has no opinion, don't vote.) If I've missed an important or viable choice, feel free to express it. |
aecurtis | 25 May 2010 5:09 p.m. PST |
When the spirit moves me, I quote the portion of the FAQ pertaining to the offending post on the thread. That's a good indicator that something else may happen. But just as often, it's ignored. Allen |
Editor in Chief Bill | 25 May 2010 5:20 p.m. PST |
Just because I disagree with your argument, doesn't mean that I am ignoring what you've said
AND: We've already had this poll, but sure, we can do it again. |
Skeptic | 25 May 2010 5:22 p.m. PST |
Unless I am mistaken, this had already been discussed, and perhaps even polled, at least a couple of years ago. Anonymity helps to encourage civic-mindedness by precluding even more nasty discussions and reprisals. Besides, the decision about whether to act upon the complaint rests with the "Editor". |
Parzival | 25 May 2010 5:35 p.m. PST |
I had indeed forgotten the old poll. I really wasn't stating a preference, though. Just putting forth the question. I see points to all the choices I listed. |
Parzival | 25 May 2010 5:36 p.m. PST |
Anonymity helps to encourage civic-mindedness by precluding even more nasty discussions and reprisals. Or encourages the petty and vindictive. Really, it can go both ways. |
Skeptic | 25 May 2010 5:56 p.m. PST |
Or encourages the petty and vindictive. Really, it can go both ways. Not really, because the "Editor" always has the final say. He is not obligated to act upon a complaint, and may even find that the complaint is frivolous or that the offence was not serious enough to merit "dawghousing". He also tends to apply more discretion than the moderators of many BB-type fora, who can be somewhat overzealous in enforcing their rules. Indeed, even those fora tend to have anonymous complaint functionality. I'd hate to see TMP become a forum for arguing about whether or not somebody broke the rules, and whether or not somebody was wrong to complain. Besides, we already have the much-maligned and thread-jacked "free XYZ" threads for appealing decisions that the "Editor" makes. Identifying the complainants is only going to make things worse. I'd also hate to see ordinary members harassed because they dared to point out that somebody broke the rules. To use a real-world analogy, should ordinary citizens who report crimes to the police really be identified to the offenders
? The police can decide whether to investigate, and, if they find enough evidence, they can make an arrest and a prosecutor can prosecute. If the judge and/or jury are then persuaded that a crime was indeed committed, they can convict the defendant. |
BravoX | 25 May 2010 6:04 p.m. PST |
Let them remain anonymous. Then you can accuse anyone of being the button pusher safe in the knowledge that they can never prove it wasn't them. In any case if the complainer was outed it would discourage frivolous complaints and then we wouldn't get to have all those "Free X" topics and are lives would be all the less for that. The rules are arbitrary, the application is random but who really cares, and it's more fun that way. ..and yes you've missed an important option. "Who cares" |
aecurtis | 25 May 2010 6:55 p.m. PST |
"But just as often, it's ignored." "Just because I disagree with your argument, doesn't mean that I am ignoring what you've said
" It's not about you! Allen |
Goldwyrm | 25 May 2010 8:07 p.m. PST |
To use a real-world analogy, should ordinary citizens who report crimes to the police really be identified to the offenders
? Reality check- This is an internet forum discussing toys and games where people push the complaint button mostly for offhand political references or saying naughty words. My opinion is the ! button is over used because it's anonymous. Too much tattling over people's one line quips that could otherwise be ignored or discussed like adults. Of course maybe it's all just an experiment. |
Parzival | 25 May 2010 8:25 p.m. PST |
Add two choices, then: Reveal publicly only if the complaint results in a Dawghousing. Reveal only to the accused and only if the complaint results in a Dawghousing. (This is getting to be a complicated poll
) |
SECURITY MINISTER CRITTER | 25 May 2010 8:37 p.m. PST |
Needs some pie too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Top Gun Ace | 25 May 2010 9:26 p.m. PST |
Total transparency for all to see. |
StarfuryXL5 | 25 May 2010 9:34 p.m. PST |
It may not even have been a complaint that got someone Dawghoused. Maybe Bill just stumbled upon the infraction on his own. |
Duck Crusader | 25 May 2010 9:51 p.m. PST |
Public, if you're gonna push it, you oughta be willing to face the music. |
Kaoschallenged | 25 May 2010 10:33 p.m. PST |
And what would that "Music" entail exactly? Perhaps the ire or negative attention from those who don't agree and/or support the one being reported? There is very much a negative connotation to that phrase. Personally I could not care less if it was made public or not. But if I press the ! button whether that person or others know changes nothing in how or why I would do so.In fact IMO some may think that if reporting someone was made public then others would feel uncomfortable in doing so and not do it.Being able to do so anonymously prevents the chance of that happening. Can it be abused. Perhaps. But then again none know that other then Bill. Who ultimately decides if a DH is required. Robert |
Space Monkey | 25 May 2010 10:49 p.m. PST |
I wasn't calling for an 'official' outing of the complainer
more that he should man-up and own his accusation. "John, I complained about that remark because blah blah blah
" Rules are rules
but shooting from the shadows is cowardice. I've long felt that there should be a number on a member's page that shows how many folks he has stifled and how often he complains
not WHO he stifles/complains about. These secret policemen should be outed
maybe have an icon of a pink dress pop up for a day or two if you rat on someone. But really, it doesn't matter
|
Connard Sage | 25 May 2010 11:01 p.m. PST |
Supply some people with the equipment to be pettily vindictive and they'll be sure to use it. Mr X "You DHd me, I'm stifling you" Chorus of X supporters, mates and assorted hangers on, "Yeah, and we're stifling you too" Mr Y "Well I'm stifling you back, So yah, boo, sucks" Chorus of Y supporters, mates and assorted hangers on, "Yeah, and we're stifling you too" Mr Z the self-righteous, "Well I'm stifling all of you, for being annoying" Repeat until fade. Meanwhile, 'offenders' will go unpoliced for fear of reprisal and the DH will be empty. The howls of anguish from the thin-skinned and easily offended will be so loud they'll be heard in Outer Mongolia. Yes. Brilliant idea. After all, as many of you keep chanting, "Bill's house. Bill's rules" |
CATenWolde | 25 May 2010 11:26 p.m. PST |
It would be interesting to at least confirm how many people actually complained, which would also reveal when the number was zero. I would also like to suggest that we make stating "Bill's house, Bill's rules" a DH'able offense
|
Kaoschallenged | 25 May 2010 11:26 p.m. PST |
"I've long felt that there should be a number on a member's page that shows how many folks he has stifled and how often he complains
not WHO he stifles/complains about." And that accomplishes WHAT? What use would that information be for? In the over 5 years I have been here I have 13 names on my list and I have reported 2 posts. So what? Cowardly? Hardly. Robert |
Connard Sage | 25 May 2010 11:31 p.m. PST |
I would also like to suggest that we make stating "Bill's house, Bill's rules" a DH'able offense
I'll second that. |
The Hobbybox | 26 May 2010 1:45 a.m. PST |
Maybe instead of complaining a few people need to realise a few things: 1. Often walking away from an argument makes you the bigger person! 2. Shutting the up is a perfectly reasonable way of winning an argument! That or just grow a ing back bone! (Thanks, I needed the rant!) |
Angel Barracks | 26 May 2010 1:51 a.m. PST |
The accuser's identity should be anonymous. |
Space Monkey | 26 May 2010 1:59 a.m. PST |
And that accomplishes WHAT? What use would that information be for? In the over 5 years I have been here I have 13 names on my list and I have reported 2 posts. So what? Cowardly? Hardly. Robert Yeah, reporting folks without owning it publicly is 'cowardly' in my book
it's not like you're fingering a meth lab here, your life isn't in danger and you're not doing anything heroic either. I think it takes more sack to scroll past the offensive content or point the rules out to the offender openly. As for what it accomplishes by showing how many you've stifled
well, if a person is stifled it shows on his page
which some folks see as a measure of who the 'difficult' characters are. I think it would be nice to see who the 'delicate' ones are as well. |
Paul Hurst | 26 May 2010 2:12 a.m. PST |
I find it amusing to see people getting called a coward for anonymous complaining by people using a screen name to protect their anonymity. |
Space Monkey | 26 May 2010 2:21 a.m. PST |
You wanna know my name? Just ask
It's Ken Seward
OK? I'm not trying to protect anything, I just think aliases are more colorful. |
Buff Orpington | 26 May 2010 3:37 a.m. PST |
Let's stick with anonymous denunciations. In fact we should remove specific accusations. Just PM Bill saying XXX has been bad, then Bill can do what he wants. All decent tyrants operate a system like this. |
Skeptic | 26 May 2010 4:53 a.m. PST |
@Goldwyrm: Please read again
To use a real-world analogy
|
Skeptic | 26 May 2010 4:55 a.m. PST |
And how would wasting bandwidth arguing each time over whether somebody broke the rules actually contribute to discussing miniature gaming
? Sometimes, the so-called "backboned" approach is actually the bone-headed one
|
nazrat | 26 May 2010 6:44 a.m. PST |
You said it, Skeptic! The DH is supposed to be a way of defusing situations, and having accusers outed is only going to cause far more antipathy and acrimony on the site. |
Andrew May1 | 26 May 2010 7:18 a.m. PST |
The accuser should remain anonymous. However, maybe we shouldn't have a Dawghouse that TMPers can see? Am I really bothered about who is in the kennel at any given moment? No, not really. If someone ends up in the DH, do we really need to know? |
anleiher | 26 May 2010 7:23 a.m. PST |
The accuser should accuse in public. It was good enough for Zola. |
Goldwyrm | 26 May 2010 7:42 a.m. PST |
One would think it amazing that TMP could have even existed without stifle and complaint buttons, yet it did. @Skeptic- I caught the analogy part. It doesn't scale to what is being discussed. What we're discussing on TMP is not serious, so making it analogous to witness protection for reporting crimes is making it out to be way more than it is. A better analogy is my 6 year old tattling to me that one of his cousins took his toy or called him a name. |
HobbyGuy | 26 May 2010 8:56 a.m. PST |
That is a very good idea. Why not? It is far to easy to be the bitter complainer around here and repeated "complaints" would be telling. Or even a section on the profile that says: Complaints sent: 22 (example) would be telling. Now that would also make me stop sending Bill a quick message via the complaint button I can tell you
. |
Connard Sage | 26 May 2010 9:27 a.m. PST |
If you want to know what living under the STASI was like, look around.* Not current affairs, the STASI has been defunct for over 20 years Not the Nizi (sic) rule either. Before anyone's complaining finger gets itchy, like. |
Jovian1 | 26 May 2010 10:36 a.m. PST |
I pushed the "complaint" button to suggest a poll to the Editor, it is multipurpose from my perspective, but if you want to have a poll on making complaints public go ahead. It won't matter to me. I find it silly as there is no right to face ones accuser in here, no right to trial, no right to counsel, no right to bond, no right to a trial by your peers, no right to have counsel appointed if you cannot afford it, no right to remain silent. In fact you have no right what so ever other than to read, and post according to the Editor's rules, so why would making the complaint public matter? |
Scorpio | 26 May 2010 1:24 p.m. PST |
|
Feet up now | 26 May 2010 1:36 p.m. PST |
How bout a whinge-bin.anyone who complains alot goes in it. |
Kaoschallenged | 26 May 2010 2:39 p.m. PST |
I wonder what percentage of those who do push the ! do that more then perhaps a couple of times in their membership here? How many do it on a consistent basis? Are there those who abuse it? Or are alot of those complaints coming from more then one poster? That more then just one poster finds the circumstance valid enough to report it? It appears IMO that some here believe that it is just a certain group of posters or whatever that does most of the reporting and that if they are made known it would stop. Robert |
Lee Brilleaux | 26 May 2010 4:33 p.m. PST |
Here's my plan. Each month every supporting member is allowed four opportunities to tell a poster what they think of them, their opinions, their haircuts, their choice in accordion music. This statement must start with a set phrase, such as "Stop being a Complete &^%$!" Let's call it a 'Richard' for convenience. If a poster picks up, say, ten Richards in the course of the month, he's DH'd until the end of it. Obviously, at the beginning of the month, supporting members may be unwilling to use their valuable Richards on anything except the most egregious actions. Towards the end of the month they'll be flying thick and fast. There will be victimization galore. |
NWMike | 26 May 2010 6:49 p.m. PST |
How about a limit on how many times you can hit the complaint button? Make too many complaints, and you get to join your enemy in the kennel. |
Neotacha | 26 May 2010 7:42 p.m. PST |
How about a limit on how many times you can hit the complaint button? That would only work if one was using the complaint button just for tattling. But if you screw up the title of a thread, the ! is an easy way to ask Bill to fix it. If a person made an ill-advised post and couldn't delete it, the ! can fix that (I know; I've used it for that). I expect Bill is capable of seeing trends in the folks who regularly use the ! and can make his own mind up whether it's stalking or not. MJS, that could be fun, but it'd really screw up the Weaver Dawghouse betting. I think. |
Klebert L Hall | 27 May 2010 3:57 a.m. PST |
We could always just have a "biggest complainer" member statistic. -Kle. |
Marc the plastics fan | 27 May 2010 5:50 a.m. PST |
Hmmm, Bill has final say, so surely it does not matter who complains, as long as the final outcome is decided by one person who probably has his own internal consistency filter. Why would "name and shame" help? I have always preferred to debate on TMP and, now that I know I can "complain" I will continue to hold my discussions "on air" – I personally would not want to DH somebody, but I would always like to try and understand what they are talking about. Of course, when it degenerates down to name calling I just move on. Mind you, maybe anybody moaning about plastic figures should be automatically DH'ed :-) |
Feet up now | 27 May 2010 1:22 p.m. PST |
Actually you could be punishing good puplic police people.The PPP must remain anonymous. |
BravoX | 27 May 2010 1:27 p.m. PST |
@Marc Notice how the plastic flames war has suddenly become a mere trifle. |
50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick | 27 May 2010 3:54 p.m. PST |
|
CATenWolde | 27 May 2010 11:45 p.m. PST |
Chronological progression of Schematic Boobitude: . . o o (o) (o) (.) (.) () () |
Procopius | 28 May 2010 10:45 p.m. PST |
kyoteblue Needs more Boobies!!!
OK. |
JackWhite | 29 May 2010 10:55 a.m. PST |
If you don't want to be dawghoused, don't post comments that you've been told ten thousands times are going to get you dawghoused. If you do, take it like a . . . no, man isn't quite the right word if you're complaining about it. I personally don't care what anybody thinks of me. One stifle or ten billion doesn't change who I am or how I think. The OFM has more stifles than any regular. I've been trying to catch him for years, but his greater experience has thwarted me up until now. A lot of people would also use the knowledge of who stifled them to poke them with a stick a little more often, getting them dawghoused with provocative statements that aren't enough to get themselves dawghoused. Why don't all of you just recognize when you're being baited and ignore it? Or jab them right back with a non-dawghousable comeback? How you can get that upset at people you've never seen before is beyond me. Can't we all just get . . . Boobies? JW |