Discussion regarding the Code of Conduct

I would be 'cept I threw up grape Kool-Aid once when I was a kid and haven't liked it since

ewwww

yeah, it was nasty

I'm not sure we could do Kool-aid on the internet.

Way too sticky on the keyboard.

We just have to figure out how to get ourselves banned.

Perhaps if there was an added by-law illegalizing discussions about ice cream.

 :smile:

I'm e-mailing a request right now.

I'm also requesting that all stupid people be banned which should solve a good majority of the problem :sillygrin: (present company excluded)

st00pid would put ME out then...damn I just paid the money too......sheot

hey. i notified myself. i handled it.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

That's the way we like it.

Everybody playing nice.

Hug for Timmy just for the heck of it

there were several questions that still haven't been answered. I vote to ban all the mods except dan kitch cm and terry

Tim, I'm curious as to why you feel you should ban me. Just wondering what the argument for doing so would be.

noone ever said that any and all questions would be answered.

and tim, you've voted to ban a lot of people. should we do that?

maybe we should ban tim for being harassing towards other ppl for wanting them banned? :pbpt:

Just a joke... don't spazz ppl.

Very few, if any, of the suggestions have been discussed. I would have thought that we could have a discussion as board members about having/not having/revising the COC. I am not clear why the discussion among the moderators has to take place in private. We are all members first. Moderators should have no other role other than to enforce agreed upon rules. And, at this point, since they are not agreed upon, they really have no role.

I am asking the moderators to individually comment here about the postings made regarding the COC. What, if anything, is being done to change them? Why, as members, should we feel obligated to follow arbitrary rules set by other members of the board?

spazz?... what a great idea! Oh well... let him have his fun... after all he can't hang out with the gang in the bars till he is 21 and that won't be till May... poor kid

well, no one's forcing anyone to be here, lee.

I'm just asking you all (moderators) to comment about what has been said by everyone in this thread.

whos the gang and what bars are you talking about? buggs? has the gang been hanging out at buggs without me again?

not to sound arrogant but I believe I was asked to leave a bar last year once and about 20 people just got up and left with me. all 20 people that happened to be out that night.

no big deal, I like perkins better than bars, they have much better breakfast :sillygrin:

I'd go to buggs... but i'm scared of the cop(s) out that way...

Ive been stopped numerous times... and its always been by the same one, and he's never been cool...

besides...

I dont have a car, right now...

I also prefer Denny's over Perkins...(sometimes)

but thats just because they have the Grand Slam....and Perkins sometimes closes at night.

bah...

but, basically any of those "we serve pancakes all day" joints, is cool....

IHOP too, now that they have that "all you can eat" deal going on... hahahaha... what were they thinking...

why do I keep coming in here and talking about food?

first, ice-cream... now pancakes?

dude...

I will give my opinion on things personally as far as what people have been saying. I'll try to hit some points that I can think of without reviewing this thread. I know people have questioned how we came to be. We were given our powers by THX. He was the one who had host access when we came over here, and he is the one who gave us our powers. It seemed like we were chosen because we were diverse, and we all had various attributes which he thought would benefit the threads here, and we felt that way too.

We came up with these rules based off other frameworks at other locations, be it large businesses/companies that have online websites, or smaller chat forum areas. At least that is my understanding. The idea was that we would have a framework in place to discuss, not try to build one from scratch. The thought was that it would take too long and be too tedious, that we'd get off track and wouldn't be as focused.

I think you have to look at things from our position here. We were put in this position, given these powers and duties. We never thought we'd be put in a situation like this. That we'd just have to deal with trolls and it would be easy, that things wouldn't be so personal. There was a very hard issue that was to be dealt with. We dealt with the issue as a moderator. The person who gave us our powers and put us in that position then left, giving up his powers. There was a decision made. People objected to it because there wasn't anything set about policy or conduct. So we went out and we worked on getting something set up where there were guidelines, there was a code of conduct.

I think that a problem we've had with discussing this all has been that instead of good, honest discussion of items on an intellectual level, that it's been more personal attacks on an emotional level. People making remarks about others, about the thing as a whole. We've taken this seriously, we've taken this whole issue that led up to this seriously. We've had to put a hell of a lot on the line for this. We're under a microscope here by people in the greater community. Some of us have had to stand up and make decisions that were unpopular. We've felt abandoned, ridiculed, not taken seriously. Yet we're trying to do what has been asked of us. And we're not getting paid for this. What are we exactly getting out of this? Not really a whole lot. We're probably losing more than we're gaining with this.

I feel that we're not going to be able to make everyone happy. Despite everyone's love for the hunt, we're all diverse. We are of different ages, different backgrounds, etc. So some things will have to be accepted, even though we all may not like it.

I have rambled on and on because of all the stuff to talk about. I think that it might be better that we address one issue at a time. If something is bothering you, focus on that issue, and have it addressed. Let's have a good discussion on it, until there's been sufficient discussion. Then we can move on to the next issue. That way we can have a better understanding of what's being discussion, people can keep track easier, and we can get more accomplished.

Looking at the code point by point, I'm puzzled as to which point/points anyone would disagree with. Maybe those who have issues with the code could address which one/ones they have a problem with.

address which one/ones they have a problem with

In addition to upholding this Code of Conduct, you are responsible for adhering to all local and national laws.

:smile: If I'm researching laws to obey, I'll never get time to hunt.

:smile: After a grueling six hour stint moving snow, I like to grab a beverage or two from my trunk.

:grin:

That I believe was just a catch all for everything else. Common sense stuff. We all have to follow the laws of the land, and this just includes it. You don't have to research all the laws, and we're not going to be on the prowl out in the parks about stuff. It just pertains to stuff that would happen here online.

Kids - Thank you for commenting. I appreciate you putting your thoughts out to the community.

I think that part of our issue is that we are not clear on the moderator's role. I am also not convinced that having such a large group of moderators is conducive to quick action. And, I don't think all current mods have the ability to be unbiased.

I particularly take offense at being given a code of conduct by undefined moderators rather than having us create one. I understand that takes time, but if we had a simple one, it could be completed rather quickly.

I've said from the beginning I am in favor of a modest code of conduct and I am reposting my thoughts here (original post is #180). Additionally, Vino made some great suggestions that I think we should think about.

------------

First, I want to thank you for putting together a Code of Conduct. I am in favor of us having one here. I also want to thank Vino for her suggestions. I think they are right on. As I've made clear earlier, I don't like the way the moderators were selected. I would prefer rotating moderators. JT recently quit as moderator. What is our plan to replace him? Do we really need X number of moderators? What is the role of the moderator? Why, according to the COC, are moderators contacted when there are problems rather than posts made to the entire board? In my world, these questions are answered before a code of conduct is determined.

That being said, I'll comment on the COC:

Overall, I appreciate the sentiment, but I think it is too long and too specific. Moderation is decidedly subjective. What one person views as offensive is not offensive to another. I don't think it is fair to the community that randomly selected moderators can decide what is appropriate conduct. Many members joke around on this board all the time. Those posts could be viewed as inappropriate to some people. If, for example, THX says something that could be viewed as inflammatory, it is likely he wouldn't be moderated because we all know him and know that his comments are not to be taken seriously. How do we know that a new or unknown member would be treated similarly?

Additionally, I am particularly crabby about this statement: "If someone posts to discuss their personal problems or seeks help from other forums members, please do not respond unless you have something positive or helpful to add." Huh? Who determines what is helpful and/or positive? What if someone posts they are having trouble in their marriage and one person responds by saying, "your spouse sounds like an asshole and you should get a divorce" as opposed to another person who responds by saying, "prayers coming your way". Which is more helpful? Again, too subjective.

I think all the statements about Accounts should be dumped. This isn't our board. This is Ableminds' board. If they have rules, fine. But, we really can't have our own since they are so hard to enforce anyway. It is very hard to prove who is posting as who.

Intolerant views?? What are those? I think many conservatives are intolerant. But, I don't think they shouldn't be able to post.

Why don't we have a moderation policy that says something like: Don't be a troll or spam the board. Be respectful. The larger community makes banning decisions. You will be banned if you do not play nice.

I only see the word banned used once in the code, and then it only says, "MAY be banned". I added the caps. It's more about not tolerating the points made.

And how do you define "play nice" as you suggested. That's pretty ambiguous also. The code defines and suggests what will or will not be tolerated in the community.

Leelabell,

You're right, we're not clear as far as what the role of the moderators are. Before things happened, it wasn't a problem, there wasn't as great a need or debate about things. But then the mods got thrust into a situation where we had to decide what to do, if anything. It's hard when there's no real leadership as far as this. We're a community, a group. We can't sit here and look to one person lead us, we have to deal with things as a commmunity. No, the size of the mods isn't quite conducive to quick action. Some things are pretty easy to decide on, other things aren't quite as easy. If there is something requiring the mods attention, do you really want action too quickly, or would you want some discussion about it? You bring up the point of some mods not having the ability to be unbiased. It's hard to be unbiased in the situation that we're in. We all have relationships and friendships outside of the boards. These relationships have been built over time through various experiences both on and offline. It's going to be hard to be unbiased with certain things. This isn't like a judicial system where the decisions we make are done in an environment where we don't personally know the people involved. When the whole Nick thing was being decided, everyone had experiences with Nick, Coco, myself. Mods have friends who have experiences with the people involved, who can influence the mods. So I don't know that you can have truly unbiased mods unless you have people outside the realm of this community.

You say that you take offense that you're given a code of conduct by moderators whose role is undefined. I think in this whole process we can really discuss the code of conduct, moderators, things like that. I think that they are tied in to each other.

You prefer the idea of rotating moderators. I personally am not a fan of that idea. We would have to decide how long people are moderators, how they are selected, if they can be moderators more than once, etc. I fear that when a decision is made, that there will be problems with the decisions and opinions of past moderators. People could say "When I was a moderator, I wouldnt' have let anything like that happen" or "If this happened with the last group of moderators, they wouldn't let this happen." I think part of the reason that the COC was so extensive was that there was the desire to make the role of moderators easier. The rules are known, something happens, then the person is dealt with. It's not as subjective with a more simple code. You talk about ambiguity in what people may deem as intolerant, what is helpful/positive. Looking at your moderation policy that you propose, there still is the ambiguity. The problems that you bring up are not really addressed.

I think the biggest thing is whether we want something that is more specific that really addresses things and make the role of moderators more clear-cut, or if we want something generalized, which puts more emphasis on the role of the moderators. I think that's the main point of all of this. If people want it to be more vague and subjective, not as huge, then we need to really focus on the role of moderators, who they are, what procedures we follow for dealing with problems. I think that is what we really should be talking about.

I don't disagree regarding the ambiguity. My point is that there is no purpose in a long, involved COC if it doesn't resolve the issues of ambiguity - which I don't think it can ever really do.

I also agree with Kids when he says, "If people want it to be more vague and subjective, not as huge, then we need to really focus on the role of moderators, who they are, what procedures we follow for dealing with problems. I think that is what we really should be talking about."

I would prefer that moderators take a very minor role in running the board and that larger decisions are made by the community at large, but this is my opinion and it should be up for discussion.

Regarding bias - I think that by agreeing to be a moderator, one needs to agree to be as unbiased as possible. I don't think that is possible for every moderator currently selected. And, if we do agree to figure out those things Kids discusses in the quotes above, we wouldn't need drawn out moderation discussions, nor would we need 6 (or more) moderators. A couple would probably be sufficient. Finally, we would also need to include the process of adding/removing moderators. It should not be a life time appointment.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

I think that one part of what Leelabell is saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is why are the conversations of the moderators secret? Why are they held behind closed doors? Can't there be a moderator discussion thread that can only be posted in by the mods, and read by the masses? That way we know what "our representatives" are arguing for or against.

I can only speak for myself, but if the moderator discussions weren't held behind closed doors, and out in the open for everyone to participate and vote, there would be no need for moderators.

We'd just have a vote on every issue as a whole group. The group of moderators was meant to do away with the whole group deciding on everything.

At least that's why I set it up that way.

I do however believe the moderators need to make their decisions public, why they made said decisions, and answer up to why they voted the way they did. That's just my personal opinion.

I've probably said this before, but the group was meant to be a diverse representation of the Cooler Crew. One big reason I selected this group was also because they were online a lot. There were many other people I considered, but they weren't on as much. Map Guy, Downtown Dave, TC, Ian, *MOM*, Green.....the list goes on.

One thing I didn't take into consideration is that the rest of the group may not have selected these same people, so it truly may not be the representation that people want.

Let me see if I can respond to some of this without creating a novel...

THX selected additional moderators because he simply didn't want to be the "stern controller" on his own any longer. I know one of the criteria used was based on who was around at various times of the day and who was around most days so issues on the boards could be dealt with quickly. Another criteria used to select moderators was a varied length of being part of the Cooler Crew. And this is not last or least as only THX knows all the reasons he selected the folks he did, but there was also selection based on who could be the least biased, the most level-headed, and who could discuss issues respectfully.

In the recent issue involving one of the moderators, that person was not privvy to the discussion around that issue nor did that person have a vote. That issue is now history.

Kids is correct in the Code of Conduct was taken from a variety of sources that dealt, in the most part, with discussion boards or forums similar to this one. We felt that in answering the issue about anyone being called on the carpet for something done without rules in place needed to be addressed. The Code of Conduct came as an answer to that issue.

As you all know, even laws passed by Congress and other legislative bodies are often interpretted differently. I don't believe it's possible to completely eliminate the ambiguity, but if there is any suggestions anyone has to make it more clear, that would be welcomed.

Personally I think you did a great job of setting it up and I don't have any problems with it.

and that's something that's even less conducive to getting things done quickly.

I agree... being a moderator is not a job that any one of them takes lightly and it has been a particularly challenging year. The moderators that stand are a good cross-section of our community and have, I believe, to the best of their ability made just fair and sound decisions based on fact and contemplation rather than emotion and personal prejudice. The code of conduct is only as good as the people who chose to follow it. It is a sad state of affairs that people who encouraged its conception are some of the first to break it for the shock value of causing turmoil within our ranks. So... if we believe as most of us do that we need to have some loose rules govern the masses... we need to follow them. I for one am sick and tired of listening to Tim's rants - I feel that this place would be a better place without him. He obviously gets off on causing turmoil and being offensive. Why do we as a group condone that behavior?

but tc you only come around when there are arguments, if I'm gone doesn't that mean effectively you are gone too?

Yes, Tim can be a dick, and start trouble just to start trouble.

Yes, TC has it out for Tim for some reason, and apparently wants him banned and kicked out of bars.

How about you both just put each other on ignore.

Everyone, put anyone you don't like on ignore. Hell, put anyone you do like on ignore.

I just wish this nonsense would stop.

I'm getting ready for a medallion hunt, I don't know about you TC, it's this crazy thing where people read clues and try and find this little lucite puck in the middle of winter. It's ussually in a park. Normally the medallion is not found during a "photo op" of digging, atleast from my recollections.

I am here to have fun with friends and joke around, I don't need a COC or a group of moderators to do that. I appreciate that it's a 'tough job', and I think that everyone that is currently a moderator should have an opportunity to step down right now, without anyone being mad at them for quitting. The moderator job was quite simple until there was a campaign to ban Nick, atleast from what I can tell.

In short, I vote everyone stop taking everything so seriously. I think I'll get a fire helmet to go with my new "unofficial cooler crew hooded sweatshirt".

thx 1138 called me a dick, ban him.

TC's mad she wasn't invited to the cool cooler crew party at the wild game.

tim, if we banned everyone you said to ban, you'd be the only one around these parts.

FWIW Tim, being a moderator always sucked.

TC has it out for Tim for some reason....

see your first paragraph and you have explained the reason :smile:

as for wanting to keep Tim out of the bars....

just doing my part as a law abiding citizen to keep kids from underage drinking :smile:

as for ignoring Tim.... I could care less other than the fact that he was instrumental in the development of a code of conduct that he now refuses to follow and I think he should be held accountable for that hypocrisy

as for being invited to the party at the wild game... believe it or not Tim, I was far too sick to attend that game even if I was invited. If I really wanted to attend a game Tim, I have the wherewithall to purchase a ticket. Wow... do you ever function on misinformation. I suggest you check your sources again because I never even implied to anyone that I wanted an invitation.

Back to the discussion of mods and the COC:

Bottom line for me - I don't like how, we as a community, are stuck with things. The COC was published, there have been discussions about it, but there is no way to actually change it. JT picked moderators and maybe they were good choices and maybe not, but there is no way to change them. Moderators discuss things in private rather than the community at large getting involved and there is no way to change that.

As Kids talked about earlier - perhaps a discussion of how things work is what is most important here.

Whatever.

I'm gonna try and ignore both of you.

like i said last night, lee. no one is forcing anyone else to be here.

ok, if you really thought I meant to ban everyone I said then you are silly. I am mocking you and your silly coc.

tc- maybe you should study up on your laws a little bit.

thank you for playing

True enough Ares, but I'm trying to ensure we consider all participants, however fleeting, in our community decisions and actions.

I think one of the most difficult parts of any of this is getting a "majority" opinion. There are those that are only here for the hunt. Some that pop in occassionally and then those who are here all year.

I dont have a solution, just making an observation. How do we insure that those who are only here for a short time have their thoughts heard as well....

whose code of conduct, tim? i wasn't out there pushing for it. although i see a lot of people who were don't like what we came up with, and the people who weren't pushing for one really don't care.

oh, we do, lee. but i personally give less credence to people who i only see come in here to complain about the goings-on in here.

I've been pretty clear that I want a COC but that I would prefer something different than what was presented. I was also under the impression that it was a work in progress and not a done deal. If it is a done deal, why do we have this thread?

If the mods are telling us we don't have a voice here, I'll stop asking questions and trying to stir discussion about it.

no code of conduct, 1-2 moderators, group decision on banning only in EXTREME cases. that's what I want.