"Should the DH be "Three Strikes and You're Out"?" Topic

I'm the sort of guy who just can't resist looking at the train wreck and I freely admit that I enjoy a bit of Shadenfreude as much as the next guy. Thus I read TMP talk on a daily basis to keep up with the "TMP Soap Opera" and check the Dog House every so often just to see who is acting up. Something I have noticed will come as no surprise to many here: a high percentage of those DH'd have had prior periods of "incarceration" and it seems as if the majority of DH infractions are being committed by a fairly small percentage of TMP users.

In this respect, DH stays are much like real world crime in which crime statistics are lop-sided, a shockingly high percentage of all crime is committed by a small number of career criminals, and in many places recidivism is as high as 75% or more. The bottom line is that the same people are going to the DH (often for the same offense) over, and over, and over, and over, and over….

Don't get me wrong. Many people have made the case that the rules here are sometimes ill-defined and inconsistently enforced. I agree, although I see a general laxness and inconsistency rather than the alleged ideological bias. Likewise, anyone can make a mistake or get caught up in an emotional exchange and step over the line. I've been in the DH twice myself for instance.* But if you have been in the DH twelve times (again, often for repeatedly running afoul of the same rule) then the problem lies with YOU, and it's not being caused by a broken rules set.

Or perhaps it is…
The purpose of a set of rules and penalties on a forum like this is to keep the environment civil and to keep would-be miscreants in line by threat of negative consequences for misbehavior. Well, the DH clearly does not do that. As it stands right now, the only effect of breaking the forum rules is to land in the DH. When this occurs the bad actor does his three or five days and then is free to re-offend at his leisure. Actual banning from TMP is so rare as to be almost mythical. Pardon the bad pun, but the Dog House has no "bite".

My proposal is that Bill Armintrout implement a sort of "Three Strikes" program in which after an offender has been given a DH stay more than a set number of times (I use "three strikes" as a convenient example here…but any reasonable number would work)they be deemed unable or unwilling to follow the rules and "play nice". At that point the miscreant's account is locked. (ALL of them for those who pretend to not understand that such things apply to individuals, not account names)

This would not be a hard or unreasonable thing to do. Don't make it retroactive if for no other reason to prevent having to go back and get everyone's DH prior count. It would not take any coding or have to wait for the arrival of the semi-mythical new TMP version. All one would have to do is create an Excel sheet with spaces for name, date, and nature of offense and then populate it as folks get DH'd. We are talking about just a few minutes work.

It would be at least a partial fix to the problem of repeat offenders who simply don't think the rules apply to them. As I state above, it would also give the DH some meaning. Right now it is little more than a source of entertainment.

What say you lot?

*Full disclosure before some clown decides to try to make the discussion about my own DH record. I've been in the Dog House twice. The first time was for violation of the "troll rule". I called a troll a troll. This was simply a statement of fact as the person I called a "troll" was DH'd at the same time for….wait for it….trolling. The truth was apparently no defense. The second time was when I questioned the sincerity of the over-the-top "outrage" of someone who was attacking me. I was DH'd on that occasion for "personal attacks. I feel both decisions were in error. But as you all may have heard(and I can confirm)criminals almost always claim innocence. So I'm clearly biased and thus can't be trusted! ;-)

No, to your proposal.

I wouldn't be here if I wasn't constantly baking heavy duty files and flirting with the prison staff in order to get Terrement and KyoteBlue out of the slammer on a regular basis.

No my friend…

Sorry.

Amicalement
Armand

Three times for the same offense? Maybe. Bill has let me slide on occasion. And I self-report when I think I have purposefully stepped near/on/over the line just to be honest.

I think some of the offenses are poorly defined.

3 different offenses? No, that is not repeating the same offenses.

I would support a number higher than three but less than 12 IF the rules seemed a lot less porous, vague and/or fuzzy than currently.

No.
And stop trying to be the TMP Hall Monitor.

The decision of what to do with "bad actors" is, and should be, nobody's business but The Editor's.
So stop telling him how to run his business.

Replace the entire current system with a program that randomly bans 1% of posters every day.

I'd answer but somebody might think the words I used upset their "safe space" and I'd get Dawghoused for it.

The way you get dawghoused at the whim of any editor would make 3 strikes and your out very easy to reach.

No!

The DH does have a bite.

I know there are some folk who never had a visit (I'm not one of them). I would hate to see what this place would look like after a few years of banning.

Actual banning from TMP is so rare as to be almost mythical.

This is just not right, there have been several (in)famous bans. Especially on the Napoleonics boards a while back…

No!!

No.

No – I'm a regular in there, its all part of the fun! A chance to take time out and sit and think…

nyet!
no!
la!
no!
non!
nein!
no!
no!

It's been suggested before. The temerity of youth to think they have an original thought…

First the reasonable commentary and discussion…

Three times for the same offense? Maybe. Bill has let me slide on occasion. And I self-report when I think I have purposefully stepped near/on/over the line just to be honest.

I think some of the offenses are poorly defined.

3 different offenses? No, that is not repeating the same offenses

Well, that is why I mentioned using an Excel sheet with nature of offense tracked. Three or more DHing for the same or very similar offenses might be a very good refinement. Three DHings for unrelated offenses over an unlimited period of time might be a tad draconian. Good call there.

I would support a number higher than three but less than 12 IF the rules seemed a lot less porous, vague and/or fuzzy than currently.

You do have a point. As I state above, the rules are inconsistent in their enforcement. But one of the reasons they are just a bad joke right now is that the only real penalty has zero bite.

But that's just my view.

At work the IP filter causes problems loading up TMP. However when someone is banned and I click on their link, then I can get TMP to work correctly. So having someone perpetually banned is a good thing.

NO.

Only been in the house once for political reasons. Some people are very passionate about certain subjects, and should not be banned for their passions. Free speech, and all that.

Besides the enforcement seems so random at times that the membership takes it into their own hands and starts "Free whomever" threads.

I don't even agree with some of the bans. Best to leave sleeping dogs lie.

And now the….um…others.

And stop trying to be the TMP Hall Monitor.

The decision of what to do with "bad actors" is, and should be, nobody's business but The Editor's.
So stop telling him how to run his business.

Um, last I checked, one of the purposes of the polls sub-forum and TMP Talk was to suggest possible changes and improvements to the site as a whole. You're trying to imply that I should not voice my opinion.
Does "For the proposal and discussion of future TMP polls" and "For discussion of community issues involving the website, including requests for new Message Boards" ring a bell?

Your post is flirting around the edges of a personal attack…Kindly refrain from such in the future.

No my friend…

I'm not your friend, Tango…

Actual banning from TMP is so rare as to be almost mythical. Pardon the bad pun, but the Dog House has no "bite".

Not so. I believe there's an entire forum consisting of banned ex-TMPers who spend their time rabidly fulminating….or there used to be. Maybe they found another hobby.

I'd let sleeping dogs lie on this one.

I think Napoleonic war gamers are the worst kind of war gamers! Discuss…

No, I do not agree. I understand the concept of the DH, and recognize rules are not always evenly applied but if it were not for some of the repeat offenders I would lose a lot of what I like about TMP. Many of the folks who are DH'd on a regular basis are also some of the most prolific contributors. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don't but I would miss a lot if those folks were not here anymore.

Well done Martin H Wolverton.
It's not often anyone can get consensus on TMP: NO.

I blame Stockholm Syndrome! ;-)

No.

<Insert Picard face slap here>

No.

I vote to abolish the Dawghouse altogether, and expect everyone to put on their big boy (or girl) pants and ignore people who offend them. We even have a function called "Ignore." And "Stifle" too. Let's all stop being baby-cries (not meant as a "Group Attack") and handle things like reasonable adults. This is an online forum about toy soldiers, not a court of public approval and offense.

N

Your post is flirting around the edges of a personal attack…Kindly refrain from such in the future.

So hit the complaint button.
Then it's up to Bill. As everything else should be.

I see you are back and you still want to control TMP to fit your standards.
If your three strikes proposal is implemented, will you enjoy seeing people like Terrement and kyoteblue banished? If it would not give you pleasure than why did you bring it up?

NO

Goodness, we play with toy soldiers for heaven's sake. We do have a gift for taking ourselves much too seriously.

But to answer the question, NO.

Certainly NOT ! And, exactly what 'problem' (in real
terms) would this solve ???

Was necesary to said that?… it's only a civilized and polite way to addressing to a fellow member … not a "status" on real therms…

Now I have serious doubts about the seriousness of your proposal … which by the way … it is completely misplaced and negative …

Regards
Armand

No.

your ungentleman proposal it absolutly politically correct and in line with today's perception of an Orwelian global control of people and mins..and another step to unique conventional thinking..probably appreciated by many ….that's the reason why i laugh at it and say "NO"

and i also propose Martin H Wolverton to be sent, for the above mentioned reasons and to prevent future ones, in his beloved DH

NO, because I would end up committing DHacide in short order.

Absolutely not. (to the OP)

No

one reason if a persistent DH offender is banished they can come back under a new account Not banning keeps the offender in under their own user game so if you don't want to read their drivel you can stifle or ban

your ungentleman proposal it absolutly politically correct and in line with today's perception of an Orwelian global control of people and mins..and another step to unique conventional thinking..probably appreciated by many ….that's the reason why i laugh at it and say "NO"

Wow.
I've been called a lot of things (some quite true), but I don't think anyone ever has accused me of being "politically correct". This is a real first.

If only you knew…. ;-)

one reason if a persistent DH offender is banished they can come back under a new account Not banning keeps the offender in under their own user game so if you don't want to read their drivel you can stifle or ban

And that is a fairly legitimate concern. It's not at all unknown for a banned user to not get the hint and return to bedevil and troll the site. In fact there is an example of that childish behavior a few posts above. But I don't feel that "they might get angry and come back to cause trouble" is really a good reason to leave a forum largely un-policed.

Anyway, I'm not surprised at the 100% negative reception. Stockholm Syndrome after all! ;-)
In any event, I doubt Bill Armintrout would ever entertain such an idea. I honestly suspect he finds the antics of the various bad actors on the site amusing.

Speaking of which….

Was necessary(sic) to said (sic) that?… it's only a civilized and polite way to addressing to a fellow member … not a "status" on real therms(sic)…

No.
But I wanted to say it. Thanks for asking. Anyway, your opinion has been noted, considered, (well, not really), and discarded.

Now that we've cleared that up, please never refer to me as such again.

(Sorry guys. I could not resist! I'll even take a DHing for that if Bill thinks it's warranted. That was worth the price of admission)

No to old Trenchie!

I've got two strikes, so no

I have been and ALWAYS WILL BE a Friend of and to, Tango01 (Armand)!

Just in case my first vote wasn't clear enough…

NO!

No.

Ridiculous ? Well, no, actually. 'Ridiculous' would
at least cause a smile or two.

Now, ill-considered, without merit and unfounded – YES !

NO…enough already

No.

Your Micro Aggression has really made this a hostile environment. I feel unsafe on this thread. Maybe you should check you "I've never been dog housed" privilege. Please, if you have any humanity left, report your abuse to the editor.

I have no memory of a such a proposal rejected so monolithically as this one did by my Texan friend Martin H Wolverton … we would have to congratulate you for that … and I do !… as a good friend that I consider myself to you … maybe you denied it because of.. shyness (?) … but that should not stop you in the near future my dear friend Martin…. to try back new approaches of this caliber … that imho are totally useless and out of place … but with an air end of entertainment …

Your friend (always)
Armand

LOL!

I must say that things like the original poster proposes makes me think whether I should say goodbye to this site. Unfortunately there is (as far as I know) no other site that offers the information I regularly find here. Apart from the disgusting about the need of muzzling people for writing things others do not like to read (but there is no reason to read it if you do not want that)- and I mean that in a wider concept than only the OOP – there still is a lot of valuable posting (including Armand ;-)). Perhaps a better way of dealing with posts that are insulting to enough people (and enough insulting to complain about them) is to simply remove them. Mind: I say "enough people", because it should be a "serious" problem. One or two complainers (whether or not one of them is Mr Wolverton) should definitely be NOT enough. Using this solution could at least be a reason to remove the silly Dawghouse-option from this site and it will not be necessary anymore to post "free (fill in name here)".