"Is The TMP Limbo ‘Talking Room’ A PERMANENT Fixture Now?" Topic

1) Is the next version of TMP still gonna have a "talking room" hidden away behind the Dawghaus?

2) Or is there going to be a better system?

I sure hope the latter. Good people keep going missing into the void and then we aren't supposed to talk about it.

I, for one, know that I would not be able to deal with another one of those "talk" sessions.

Dan
PS. For the record, I'm not trying to disrespect anyone here. I'm asking a plain honest question born out of a certain level of frustration.

Danny, I don't understand your objection.

If someone violates forum rules, we can either Dawghouse them or have a staffer talk to them about the problem. Depending on the situation, we choose one route or the other. Either way, they temporarily lose their posting privileges.

I just wanted to know if that's going to be a permanent feature*, meaning will that 2-part system (the "DH" or "Talk To") continue to be in use in future versions of TMP?

Dan
* I honestly don't know why I said "fixture" in the title. I meant feature or aspect of the process.

As I mentioned before, it seems to be working well, so I have no plans to change things as they are now.

My concern is that the rest of us have no idea why a person has 'disappeared' (or often, even that they have).

This system might work to give the 'offender' specific guidance on how to avoid further problems but doesn't help the rest of us knowing what type of posts are being flagged up as transgressions and how to avoid them.

With the DH you knew not only who had transgressed, but more importantly, why they were there, allowing us to adapt our posts accordingly.

I know the rules are there for anyone to read, but like any legal code there are 'judicial' interpretations which may change cases!

It would be simpler for editors and others if, as with the DH, we could see at glance what to avoid saying.

Well, the FAQ already lists the forum rules.

Alternately, we could make an announcement on the forums whenever someone's account is permanently locked, with the reason why.

Or we could allow the banned member's Profile page to include the reason the account is locked.

Unless you have a better suggestion?

Personally, I prefer just the Dawghouse. At least in the dawghouse you do your time and you get out. Limbo can last forever. Which is fine if you have an offender that constantly breaks the rules, but putting a guy you never hear from in limbo for one infracton is a little much.

Limbo !?!? I can't go that low !!!!

Personally, I prefer just the Dawghouse. At least in the dawghouse you do your time and you get out.

The problem is that some people will continue the bad behavior, and don't care if they get Dawghoused repeatedly for it.

Also, if we have a talk with a person, sometimes they begin to understand what the problem is and moderate their behavior. So it can have a tremendous effect.

And for egregious offenders this is no doubt a great idea.

But perhaps, without breaking any confidences of the confessional the rest of us could know whether it was a chronic condition that got them temporarily locked or an acute breach of the rules – and what that was?

So possibly a 'Temp locked' marker like the DH symbol? With a note in a list like the DH? Then we could all know how to stay on the straight and narrow without wasting editors' valuable time.

I think the three tier system is a good idea – DH for minor infrequent infractions (been there a couple of times ), temp locked to straighten out misunderstandings, and locked if people won't abide by your decisions.

Fair, open (if we know about the temp locked ) and equitable to keep the good natured flow of information going.

Alternately, we could make an announcement on the forums whenever someone's account is permanently locked, with the reason why.

Don't we already post the sentence on the Dawghouse and the reason (temporarily) in their profile, which is linked from the Dawghouse?

If we are to plaster such announcements all over the boards in the future, I recommend you commission a short video of third graders chanting the offender's names as in, "Johnny got in trou-ble! Johnny got in trou-ble!" to the nanny nanny boo boo tune.

You seem to have missed the point.
Temporarily Locked, being used in lieu of the Dawghouse was the subject.
Nobody plastering anything.

Temporarily Locked, being used in lieu of the Dawghouse was the subject.

In tandem with the Dawghouse would be a better way to express it.

In tandem, and sometimes when someone isn't really violating a specific forum rule.

Dan

In tandem with the Dawghouse would be a better way to express it.

Yep, sorry Bill, agreed – I said in my earlier post 'I think the three tier system is a good idea' – I was just trying to refocus etotheipi

(I see we have a case in point with Dan?)