"Proposed: Escalating Dawghouse sentences for each instance" Topic

Currently, most Dawghouse sentences default to the same sentence, as explained in the site FAQ:

Three days. Five days on Fridays, four days on Saturdays.

(Longer sentences have been at the discretion of the moderators.)

In our recent poll on forum moderation, one of the top proposals was to make Dawghouse sentences escalate. According to the original proposal:

One non-warning eligible offense = one day. Second time = three days. Third time = one week…

TMP would track each person's previous Dawghouse sentence, and the next sentence would be 2-3 days longer.

Would you support this change?

I think dawghouse stays need to be longer from the start. A week for fsecond offenses, and two weeks for the third, moving on to a month for any that occur after that.

No.

Wot, no caning?????

I've never come across another forum with a "dawghouse". Why is this an issue here?

It's just our unique way of handling forum problems. No sense in being a cookie cutter copy of everyone else.

First strike – one week
Second strike – one month
Third stile – one lifetime

So long as you maintain the ability to do shorter ones – when an innocent mistake is made as well

Yes

Disagree.

Lately, I seem to be spending more time on TMP shooting down proposals to make it a quieter and lonelier place than I am actually learning anything. Are there more of these coming?

Let's try again. This is not a research site with a bunch of primary sources available to us. It is also not a lecture hall, where we all take notes or not depending on how clever and well-informed we think the speaker is, but otherwise are silent. This is a discussion center. That means we talk back and forth, we come at problems from different perspectives--and we disagree. And when people disagree about things they care about--well, ONLY the English grow polite, and if you think that's incompatible with being insulting, you don't really speak their language.

Let it go, Bill. Let them all go. You are striving for a degree of control which would kill your creation if you achieved it.

Robert, many thanks for a extremely well written and we'll thought out response. I agree, and could not have said it any better. Thank you sir!

I've never come across another forum with a "dawghouse". Why is this an issue here?

Because on other fora, the moderators delete posts and block accounts behind the scenes without telling you. You haven't come across it because they don't tell you it is happening.

Also, other fora tend to have a zero tolerance (kicked out behind the scenes automatically) or complete acceptance of profanity, aggressive behaviour, and political advocacy.

Sounds more complicated than we need. If someone wont behave the current system seems to work.

23rd, that line will go right over the head of anyone not married to a Brit.

Bob, can you be so sure that the results will make this place lonelier?

And when people disagree about things they care about, they need to learn to present effective arguments like reasonable people…not resort to vehemence and name calling like children , That fails.

By the way, the only ones not letting it go are those crying out about Cacique Caribe's "unjust" treatment and resent any fiddling by the sysop that might further "usurp their rights to free speech". The rest of us can live with it.

Sounds more complicated than we need.

It sounds complicated because he is trying to influence people who are behaving in an inconsiderate manner to not do so. This is an inherently complex thing to do.

Note I did not say "inconsiderate people". I don't believe that being inconsiderate is an inherent trait of anyone's personality, but rather a choice of behavioural attitude.

As mentioned above by robert pipenbrink, people can disagree without being disagreeable about it. And, honestly, everybody acts in a disagreeable manner at least every once in a while. Different people at different times (in different life contexts) will respond differently to being reminded of that, with respect to their own behaviour.

The question is, "Is a progressive punishment stimulus likely to be more effective at getting people to behave within the agreed upon rules, and if so, is it worth the additional level of effort over the current static punishment stimulus?"

Aethelflaeda, for the second time, my name is not "Bob," nor are those who disagree with you children.

"Lonelier" is the term we use in English to describe fewer and fewer people. This is the third proposal in a week to find a new excuse or mechanism to silence or expel people. There have been none to bring back the people we've lost or to attract anyone new. The logical end point is no posting whatever--which will guarantee no one will be offended of divided, and there will be no violation of forum rules. But is silence the objective?

You would prefer then, "that bloke from Indiana"? Your indignation rings falsely but I'll quit using it.

Well said on both points, Robert. Aethelflaeda, there is a painful irony in your complaining about the manners of other posters on this forum.

I agree with Robert, and was thinking the same thing.

Many are gone, and I suspect this will only make more leave, hence may original sarcastic question, "Wot, no caning?????".

With all due respect, GF, it's a scissoring moment. You are going to believe what you preconvieved about me no matter what I write. I really have no faith in my ability to convince yourself, RP, WS, or many others that my own politics have little to do with my views about debate with decorum here.

The problem remains, there are a vocal few who state that behaving with decorum in conversation is some sort of abridging of their natural rights and that this abridgment will result in a place where they are oppressed and thus not as rich an experience for anyone. I believe that that view is spuriously presented and there are a few out there who are very disingenuous about their real reasons. It is rife across our divided modern society and this is just a proxy fight.

I just want to sit down to a nice game with folks and not have to hear snide political commentary when I do it.

Should there also be a timer on offenses, so that mistakes of years past don't make this year's punishment worse?

I suspect the problem is that dawghousing doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. Some could care less, for others it's a real incentive to control themselves. If someone doesn't shape up after a trip or two to that most reviled of quarters the best idea might not be doing more of something that doesn't work, but doing something else.

Of course, what else can you do? The only ideas I can come up with are silly: Put dunce hat icon next to their name for a month, have the posting software introduce grammatical and spelling errors into their posts.

Here's a possibility: on exiting the dawghouse you're only allowed a few posts a day for a week. This probation period would require people to think about what they post, whether a particular opinion is worth one of their few posts. Making people think about their posts is the whole point, right?

Or perhaps for a week their posts are delayed an hour or two? Limiting their ability to get into heated exchanges? Or they can only post to each thread once?

Of course, it's easy for me to sit here and talk about complicated coding schemes, since I don't have to implement them.

In any case, good luck. Trying to make people be polite or considerate who didn't learn growing up is Sisyphean.

Aethelflaeda, I have at no time during this discussion referred to your political beliefs, if any, however much you might enjoy hiding behind them now. I would not, however, call a habit of calling your opponents badly-behaved children, nor addressing them by diminutives the actions of someone who believes in debating with decorum.

If Bill were sincere and rigorous about weeding out troublemakers and--I believe the term was "divisive" elements?--you'd have bounced twice on your way out.

I would not wish this change…

Sorry Rob, I always seem to get you, Gone Fishing and Winston mixed up. As for calling people children, I can't help but describe much of the behavior here as child-like whining. But I'll give you the last word. Bill will decide which sort of behavior he considers tolerable.

How about this, the next time I drive through Indiana, we meet for a friendly game and I'll bring the beer. You name the place.

I don't understand where all of this sudden need for change is coming from. Everything has been very cordial on the miniaturespage for some time now. It seems as though far fewer people have been earning a stay in the doghouse. Let's just leave well enough alone an move on.

Kevin

P.S. Aethelflaeda's offer to Rob is an excellent example of the cordial behavior that has been characterizing the miniaturespage as of late. Let's keep things the way they are.

Let it go, Bill. Let them all go. You are striving for a degree of control which would kill your creation if you achieved it.

I didn't make these proposals, Robert. I am just responding to the feedback from the TMP community. It is only fair to bring these up for a vote.

If someone doesn't shape up after a trip or two to that most reviled of quarters the best idea might not be doing more of something that doesn't work, but doing something else.

Of course, what else can you do?

We have two other approaches available. First, we can talk to the person about their behavior. Second, we can restrict access to specific boards the person has trouble with (for instance, we have in the past restricted access to the Warhammer 40K board because someone could not restrain their trolling comments there).

Well stated Robert.

Again, considering the varying sensitivities to malice – and even insult – among the population in general and TMP members specifically – on any side of the political spectrum, another proposal that would leave TMP denuded of posters to satisfy a small minority.

And as CC was brought up, I am still wondering at what he wrote that was worthy of 'contacting a moderator.'