"Proposed: Dawghouse Both of Them" Topic

In a recent poll, one of the top vote-getters was:

if two members get into a forum dispute, Dawghouse both of them

Do you think this should be added as an official TMP forum rule?

I don´t mean to be cheeky, but does this mean if someone says "you´re stupid" and I say "no I´m not", then we both go to the DH?

Regardless Bill, I think the rules are pretty well spelled out in the faq and only people who break them should be punished.

Agree with TJ.

Too convenient for the sock puppet ploy to be used for abuse.

This is now the fourth additional censorship proposal in the past week. If you're determined to reduce membership, consider raising fees instead.

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

This is now the fourth additional censorship proposal in the past week. If you're determined to reduce membership, consider raising fees instead.

I'm simply being responsive to feedback, Robert. These are the top vote-getting proposals from the recent poll, so they deserve to be considered. This doesn't mean I endorse any of the proposals, I am just trying to be fair to all proposals.

Kinda throwing the baby out with the bathwater

I would say sometimes. There have been a number of DHing cases over the past few years when someone says something provocative and someone else responds only to end up DH'd. Some posters seem to be able to get away with pretty much anything whilst anyone who contradicts them suffers. I think some consideration needs to be made to why a poster responded as they did.

I don't think this goes far enough. I recommend buying everyone on the planet's identify information on the Dark Web, signing them up for a TMP account, then DHing the lot!

When one fails, all are punished! Well … you know … except me. We have to be reasonable about it.

Dumbest idea I think I've seen yet. So NO.

No

No

No.

"I know it was your brother who did it, but you are both grounded!"

I've been DH'd in the past much too often to be a good source for a comment on this topic …

So … No Comment …

Define dispute. Under the current vague wording, posters citing different valid (e.g., Oman v. Napier) sources could be dog-housed.

The dawghouse should be for each and every person that breaks the rules, and not for anyone who chooses to engage with someone who breaks the rules but keeps to the rules themselves.

Otherwise, wouldn't people self-censor rather than risk a polite response to someone known to break the rules, since that risks a trip to the DH for no reason? That lets people with a bad reputation speak their mind without fear of being contradicted, which for some folks would be a good reason to *earn* a bad reputation.

Maybe this is supposed to prevent someone who stays within the rules from provoking someone else into breaking the rules, but we each have to be responsible for ourselves, regardless of provocation.

Bill, the feedback that you are responding to is from 1/10th of 1% of those who are eligible vote in the poll. Dude don't waste your time.

The proposal comes up frequently, so I think it is good for the community to discuss it.

No.

I agree with Col. Scott ret.

"if two members get into a forum dispute, Dawghouse both of them"

There is, of course, another problem, take the Napoleononic Boards; Brechtel198 and VonW get into a dispute, (a fairly common occurrence) then Gazzola piles in against VonW (absolutely guaranteed), so then someone feels they have to speak up in defence of VonW and then it becomes tag-teams. Now Gazzola probably hasn't added anything to the discussion beyond throwing fuel on the fire. The solution is DH everyone, hence the 42 people in the DH on one occasion from the Napoleonic Board.

Nope