This is a board for discussion concerning the future of the Site and the possible removal of Religious and Political Musings. Now that three long-time-and-respected Nitcentral posters have espoused the opinion that the Musings boards can be a source of trouble for the site as a whole, it should be examined whether the Chief should be petitioned to remove or disable these boards.

I personally feel the boards should go. This site was not set up originally to be an all-around discussion site, its charter was to encourage and document the honorable sport of nitpicking popular media. It is true that non-nitpicking discussion quickly took hold and continues on the boards to this day, but that is not the primary problem. The problem is discussion is allowed on two major hot-button genres of conversation: Religion and Politics. These subjects will always be havens of conflict and controversy, no matter how many rules of conduct are set. They will always attract trolls and misanthropic posters more easily than any of the cultural topics.

Discussion? Support? Opposition?

IIRC, RM was set up first, in response to the "Bath Scene" in Insurrection.

Prior to that, when the Chief was available, he led the "Eating a Jeep" board.

To be honest, I have no preferences either way. I tend to find that I get a bit snarky on PM/RM, or immediately after readint PM/RM.

The other question I have is, Should Legal Musings go as well, if PM/RM go? It's pretty much a dead board.

I think they present too easy a target. Lest we forget, the last poster banned, John-Boy, was never a frequenter of either the Musings.

For that matter, the Musings boards (at least the Religious one) were created very quickly after the founding of Nitcentral, VERY quickly if one counts RM's appearances as part of "The Pretender" board (i.e., Eating a Jeep). I THINK I was the first moderator of the separate Religious Musings. Many of the "glory years" of the board occurred when Religious Musings was up and running.

I will say, and I certainly point the finger at me, that if these boards persist, changes in policy might need to take place and a stronger vigilance/communication policy would be needed (the "R" thing should never have become the mess that it turned out to be). If people are not willing to do this, then I would suggest that perhaps the Musings boards can be taken out. But I don't think it's fair to point the finger at the Musings boards for any perceived downfall of Nitcentral. I myself have several opinions of my own as to what the problem is, but I don't know if anyone is really interested.

The boards should stay. Most of the visitors here are more than capable of discussing their views with others, and being polite when disagreeing with others. The majority of them should not have to suffer just because of tiny majority of them are not.

I spoke then and speak now only for myself. I have not visited any part of the site but the Sink and Lost (and the mod threads) for a very long time. It is entirely possible that Religious Musings and Political Musings have become open air forums filled with concise thoughts by those who respectfully agree to disagree with each other, all sides striving merely to improve the commonweal.

I got lectured by several e-mails about the R thread that it did not fit any definition of "good cheer" that anyone could find. After reading the thread thoroughly for the first time since I came back from That Place Where The Walk Signs Are Too Darn Quick What is Wrong With You People I realized they were right. But it solidified the opinion I have had about the Musings for a very long time: they are always going to be a tar pit. Good cheer is going to remain an elusive goal for those topics. If keeping a thread to talk about how much Luigi stinks is a bad idea I feel keeping two separate topics about the most volatile subjects there are is equally a bad idea.

If the Chief wants to keep them that's fine with me. I wanted to express frustrations I have had for going on, what, five years now? If this were my site, I would have closed those topics a long time ago and banned political and religious discussions at my site I created to discuss why the comm system on the Enterprise is broken.


(A historical note: RM definitely came from the Bath Scene on the Insurrection board, but I believe the Pretender mod tried to make a PM thread before the Chief spun it off into its own thread.)

I'm not sure about that--I thought RM came from the Pretender board, and PM didn't come until years later.

You've set up an either-or scenario, Mark, that I don't think is fair. The idea that because R has decided to declare a grudge and can't restrain himself from complaining to everyone on the planet about Luigi's actions should not negate the ability of others to discuss difficult issues. In Phil's book, he discussed the nature of faith in the section on "Who Watches the Watchers?" Tricky issue. He did it in an intelligent manner, which I think others can do. When was the last time a flame war erupted on Religious Musings? Heck, when was the last time a flame war erupted on any of the Musings that was not dramatically different than the other obnoxious scenarios that pop up on the other boards? Discounting the R scenario, I can't think of too many.

My solutions would be:

*Make Nitcentral require a very simple registration, password system.
*Eliminate users that have existed for years to merely troll and provoke trouble.
*Have strong communication between moderators, who would take an active role in running the site to remedy the fact that Phil cannot (i.e., the R issue would have been handled in-house by a Review Committee, perhaps of the Roving Mods, rather than having R just complain for weeks and weeks).
*Carefully segregate all religious and political issues to the respective boards.

Any other old-timers wish to join in? I'd be interested in hearing Benn and Tom's opinions, especially.

Well you certainly know my opinion on this by now.The Musings should either be removed, disabled, or not allow the moderator to be an arbitrary and solitary dictator. (Legal and Political musings seem to be the more unpleasant of boards as for some reason there doesnt seem to be the same kind of poor leadership on Religious musings ,aside from Zarm, folks have been heated but not excessive about it. A general sense of you have your opinion I have mine seems to prevail at RM. Rather because RM has a moderator who doesnt have to be right all the time.) A review board would be the minimum I feel that would be beneficial to keep them open (or get Luigi out of office).

And I was winding down about Luigi. Its mostly background right now.

I think that the boards should stay. For the people who don't like the kind of debate that often comes up on RM and PM, don't go there, what's the problem?

I was under the impression that PM started after the board for "Up the Long Ladder" turned into a flame war over the killing of unformed clones and the morality of abortion, which was also my first introduction to Peter.

Funny, R, you didn't seem to have a problem with Luigi as moderator until he banned you.

I don't get the Zarm-hate either. You can, as I have on occasion, disagreed with his logic or found his reasoning weak or wished he would provide for more evidence. But I don't recall him using profanity or vicious personal insults (maybe I missed that).

I really couldn't care less what happens to the RM or PM boards. I don't come here for those threads. If we truly think that removing them restores some civilty to this site, so be it. If they go, I have not problem with it.

MikeC:
*Make Nitcentral require a very simple registration, password system.

I'm curious, how would that help stop arguments on the boards?

MikeC: I have had some problems with the way Luigi has handled things before in the past but they had not seemed large enough issues until I was awoken to the problem by his banning me and then looked at the pattern of his behavior. I definately though feel like if I had said anythign earlier he would have banned me earlier. I mean look at how quickly he flys off the handle when anyone says anythign negative about his style or behavior as moderator. How defensive he gets when you question him. I mean its like he has to be proven right on everything that goes on.

Luigi has a pattern of wanting to be the only one who is right in any discussion and being a stuffed shirt. I should have said somethign earlier but I overlooked it the way people are supposed to do when they are friends.

And the registration/password system wouldn't stop arguments. It would just make sure the people involved couldn't hide behind false names. A couple of other boards I go to have that and still have problems with people getting rather verbose shall we say during arguments. (and one of them is about D&D rpg so you would think that things would not be so heated)

It would make it a little easier to stop anonymous or obviously alias postings. For instance, I could not attack a fellow poster under the cover of a generic name.

I agree Luigi likes to be proven right. So do you. That doesn't make him an arbitrary dictator. There is a very short list of people banned by Luigi, so he can't have that itchy a trigger finger, now can he?

Did people think I was kidding about not talking about the Luigi/R thing any more? Please don't. Howsabout we consider that specific topic closed.

Mike, point taken about the false dichotomy.

I feel that the RM and PM boards will always be the most contentious part of NitCentral. That is their nature and why I avoid them. I thought they were a bad idea and that ill will created there would leak over to the other parts of NitCentral. I must admit that hasn't happened as much as I expected. I wouldn't mind seeing them go, but I don't feel strongly about it. If the majority and the Chief thinks they should stay, I won't complain.

I think RM & PM should go.

I've voiced my opinions on both boards and received provocative rebuttals for voicing my opinions....like my opinions meant nothing to nobody. Granted, I may not be the "sharpest knife in the drawer", but that doesn't mean I'm stupid either.

Excuse me for this rather stupid question, but what sorts of things are discussed in them? Is it about religious and political events that are going on now or what?

I've avoided the areas because lately, at least in the political side of things, the identity of what I side with has been twisted by the apes in power ( I don't mean bush, I mean all of congress). I'm more of a conservative and since the "conservative party" has increased the gov more than the liberals lately, I've found no reason to check out the PM and RM boards.

Things like the priest scandels and the twisting of political ideals such as what has occurred to the conservative party and its representation by the current administration will most likely lead to fighting because what's gone on doesn't reflect the true nature of the religion or the political ideology. Ted Kennedy doesn't reflect true Catholic teaching, Bill Clinton doesn't reflect that democrats think sex in government offices is okay, etc.

On the other hand, I do like the idea and the ability to discuss politics and religion. I have a compromise for these two boards. Why not remove them but put in their place, Historical versions of them.

I may be wrong, but I think a lot of the issues and subsequent fighting has to do with discussing relgion and politics that are going on now. Would a 15 year discussion barrier be effective in keeping tempers from flaring? I believe discussing religion and politics through the context of historical events rather than policies would make for better discussions.

As to registration and such, well, there goes the ability to write puns and to shorthand the username...

What's it going to be KAM?

Additionally, I have enough passwords to remember and having to log in just to reply might be annoying on some computers if logging in and replying requires cookies to be saved. Many places like school and places of work, their pc's are set up to block cookies which might impose limitations on the places people could post from.

On Baseball ThinkFactory, they have a way where everyone is registered but registered users can still alter their name (it comes out like "MikeC posted as George Steinbrenner"). That may be far more sophisticated software.

John Lang, I have to respectfully disagree. You posted your opinions and others posted theirs. Yes, they disagreed with you. But I don't understand what you expect to see happen on a discussion board--other people have opinions and will express theirs. I took great pains to state that I was not being disrespectful to your opinion; I just disagreed and wanted to say why. To say that your opinions meant nothing to nobody is an overstatement, IMHO.

Mark, my apologies.

I've always opposed the registration proposal, which has persisted nearly as long as the board's been open. The marvelous thing about NitC is it is as free as air. By vigilance and avoidance of potential trouble areas, we can keep it that way.

I for one will have no reason to be here if we close the PM and RM boards. I for one see no reason to close them, I feel they help expand my political and world views

Mark Morgan: But it solidified the opinion I have had about the Musings for a very long time: they are always going to be a tar pit. Good cheer is going to remain an elusive goal for those topics.
Luigi Novi: LOL. Let me see if I understand this. That the Musings are powder kegs is proven by a topic that was started in the Sink???

What these past few weeks should have solidified is the fact that it is certain posters who are problems. Not the boards. There is this tendency I see among certain persons to not be able to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to diagnosing problems that cause flame wars. The problem is that Nitcentral’s rules are not consistently enforced by all the moderators, and that they are too quick to coddle trolls, flamers and paralogists.

You say it’s the Musings boards. Okay, then. How do you explain the flamefests with Jwb on the Trek boards? With Rene and R here in the Sink? With John-Boy on the Smallville boards? Simple. It’s the person posting. Not the board. Blaming inanimate objects instead of the people who use them is just plain wrong-headed. It’s like blaming the deaths on Titanic not on the yahoos who insisted on traveling too fast, the idiots who didn’t put enough lifeboats on board, or the people who didn’t put a search light on top of the search tower so that they could see icebergs, but on the iceberg.

Why should the spirit of open discourse and expression suffer for all because of a few who abuse it?

And yes, Zarm did make some extremely bigoted remarks about those who don’t share his religious beliefs.

And I, too, do not see how a registration/password system would prevent flamewars, especially when trolls like John-Boy are banned, which solves the problem. Yeah, it would stop Anonymous trolling, but what about the non-anonymous kind? Why, for example, is Rene still on this site? The problem is that few people are willing to stand up on demand his being banned. Typically when a wide swath of people do, it’s only after that person has attacked a wide swath of people. But if he attacks only one or two people, no one seems to care, and the person attacked is typically the only one or one of the few calling for the ban, as when Anonymous22 asked Rene to be banned (though I have vocally supported him).

John A. Lang: I've voiced my opinions on both boards and received provocative rebuttals for voicing my opinions....like my opinions meant nothing to nobody. Granted, I may not be the "sharpest knife in the drawer", but that doesn't mean I'm stupid either.
Luigi Novi: Who has done this to you? And how were the rebuttals provocative? Which threads were these? (I assume you’re not talking about the thread about The Da Vinci Code, since that’s not in the Musings boards [which you mentioned specifically], and I don’t see any responses to your posts that are “provocative.”)

Luigi Novi: LOL. Let me see if I understand this. That the Musings are powder kegs is proven by a topic that was started in the Sink???

You have to consider that that topic in the Sink only existed because of something that started in one of the Musings.

Any other old-timers wish to join in? I'd be interested in hearing Benn and Tom's opinions, especially. - MikeC

I'm flattered. I'm also thinking about it before I really jump in. I will say, that for a site devoted to nitpicking, the Ms boards (RM/PM/LM) don't really belong. Unless you're somehow nitpicking someone's religious or political beliefs or theology or the law itself. Unfortunately, that's not very practical and would still cause a lot of bad blood all around.

I myself have several opinions of my own as to what the problem is, but I don't know if anyone is really interested. - MikeC

I am interested. For what it's worth. Personally, I've wondered if the site began to falter when we began to ban people? Maybe we held off banning someone too long before doing so? Maybe we should never have banned anyone in the first place?

I know. It's an odd position for me to take given how loudly I've called for certain people to be banned in the first place. I'm now questioning the wisdom of it. But I'm wondering if banning people is what started Nitcentral on its downhill fall. (I know it's not logical. Nor is it reasonable to blame banning. But it seems to me there's a connection in there somewhere.)

THREAD JACK:

As for banning Rene... Well, I'm currently reluctant to call for that. But I do think Rene has proven himself more often than not incapable of posting in good cheer ("Get a life") that he would be a good candidate for banning.

Exactly. IMO, most of those who have been banned from the site were banned not because they had divergent opinions, but because they could not present their opinions in a civil manner. They ignored the site rules, even when given warnings, and they were kicked out because of that.

Mike, I agree with you regarding greater communication among moderators, and would like to hear your thoughts. I also think we need to have more discussion on how the site's rules are defined (What constitutes a flame and what doesn't? What type of ad hominem arguments are verbotten?)

Well, boards devoted to Music and Humor have nothing to do with nitpicking either. Obviously, this site evolved into one for expressing feelings and opinions in general.

Banning people does not cause such problems, Benn. It's the solution to it. Saying that banning started the problem is not only makes as little sense as saying that it's the boards, but it seems that you're contradicting yourself by suggesting it on the one hand, then saying it's not logical or reasonable on the other, and then yet again saying that you think there's a connection. In addition, doesn't this defy the chronology? Don't people get banned after they cause problems with trolling and flaming?

Benn: Well, I'm currently reluctant to call for that. But I do think Rene has proven himself more often than not incapable of posting in good cheer ("Get a life") that he would be a good candidate for banning.
Luigi Novi: The two halves of this passage appear to be contradictory. Can you explain what you mean by this?

---

Quote:

Luigi Novi: LOL. Let me see if I understand this. That the Musings are powder kegs is proven by a topic that was started in the Sink???

You have to consider that that topic in the Sink only existed because of something that started in one of the Musings.

By Benn

---

If I'm not stating anything with any precision about this topic, it's probably because I'm not very passionate about any of this right now. And that probably showed through in my post. 'Scuse me for having ennui.

For me, Nitcentral seems to have started going downhill when we began banning people. Saying that banning "is what started Nitcentral on its downhill fall" is certainly a mistatement. I should've thought that sentence through better. My apologies.

As far as the Rene situation goes, yeah, my paragraph was contradictory. So effin' what? It's how I feel about the situation. I guess I'm tired of advocating the banning of this person and that person. While I may think Rene deserves to be banned, I'm not going to champion that cause. I know that's not going to pass the LUIGI NOVI standard of logic, but right now, I'm not sure I care.

BTW, Mark, that "By Benn" in your last post doesn't belong there. It was Josh who responded to Luigi, not me.

But Mark, how then, do you explain those examples I pointed to of flamefests on non-Musings boards?

So effin' what, Benn? Well, as the first instance reads, it doesn't make sense. I understand your point in the second one, though. You have no problem with banning Rene, but don't want to be a part of the "cause", right? Thanks for the clarification.

Torque - What's it going to be KAM?
Well, the last time the Chief asked about registration I voted no & I'd still vote no.

As for the history of Religious Musings...

First there was the Bath Scene which ran 6 threads.

Then The Pretender moderator created a section for religious discussion.

Then the Chief created the Eating A Jeep section of the Kitchen Sink.

Then the Kitchen Sink mod (Joanna Cravit?) got tired of dealing with it and IIRC was going to delete it when someone (MikeC?) agreed to moderate a seperate discussion thread called Religious Musings.

I don't think the Musings boards themselves cause problems. As proven by the Bath Scene thread itself. I tried reading it once, it started off rather innocuos, then some people started calling others prudes for having moral concerns with the scene & that eventually got into religious discussion.

There have been other threads through the years that have caused problems. I remember one thread in the Classic Trek Sink that started off with a troll calling Trekkies losers or something & the thread quickly devolved into "Hey, at least I'm not one of those Trekkies who (fill in the blank)!"

Then there was Brian Webber's call for people to boycott Richie Vest's board. *ugh!*

The problems come not from the topics, but from the posters. Sometimes trolls, sometimes people getting upset, typing something in anger & hitting post without thinking about what they've written.

While I stay away from the Musings boards I do think they serve a purpose. Especially when someone starts going off on a religious or political tangent on another board.

I apologize to everyone for exaggerating.

I must add that most of the people I've talked to at work...which has a mixture of religious beliefs...agree with me that "The DaVinci Code" is rubbish.

Hey, man, so do I. But your point wasn't that it was rubbish, it was that it should be banned. Just clarifying.

Luigi, I agree that in and of itself, registration will not solve much, but it is a step in the right direction and will eliminate some pesky sock puppets (is it likely that "Lisa" for instance merely posts under the name "Lisa"?). Definitely a stronger enforcement of the rules would help.

It would also help to have more clearly defined punishments. Right now the moderators have certain discretions, but there's nothing like an official warning, a suspension, or anything on a board-level.

I don’t usually visit the Musings boards so I can’t comment on specifics. In general, my concern is that if the Musings boards go, those who want to debate political or religious topics may start on other pages. For instance, I have occasionally seen a TV show episode thread begin to become a heated debate about a subject that was vaguely mentioned in the show (we’ve had a few close calls on the Stargate board where an episode thread has begun to deteriorate into an argument about American politics or the American military in general instead of in connection with just the show). When such circumstances occur, a gentle “Take it to the Religious/Political Musings board,” reprimand usually brings the posters back on track and reminds them that this isn’t the place for such discussion. If they do want to continue the discussion, they have somewhere more appropriate to take it.

As others have said above, it’s usually specific posters who decline to follow the rules of the board. Maybe the rules need to be clearly set out at the top of the front page or, at the very least, a link should be provided at the top of the page with a suggestion that new visitors go read the rules before joining in? I imagine that a lot of new visitors simply don’t know what the rules are.

I was interested in the comment that if the Musings go, then all non-nitpicking pages should go. It’s a good point – if you removed non-nitpicking pages, about 97% of Mystery Science Theater 3000 would have to go, as the episodes were fairly non-nitpickable and most of the pages simply list viewers’ favourite lines. I think that if the Musings go, they should be removed purely for their contentious nature, not because they’re not about nitpicking ... but there are other contentious topics around the board and I wonder if we’re in danger of limiting debate.

If the Musings pages do go, the moderators of all boards would need to be ready to be more strict with posters who step over the line. Maybe the moderators would even need some more up to date rules on what is and isn’t permissible.

I'll add my two cents to this-

Though I come to these boards often, I don't usually post in either of those sections because I'm never sure if I can express my opinion or comment on someone else's without offending someone, given that what I write is words on a screen and no one can judge my tone of voice or other things that would indicate that I am being friendly. That's just my personal preference, though, and if people think they can do so effectively, I support them.

I can understand the point of view, however, that this is a nitpicking website, not a political discussion site. I can accept political and religious discussion if it relates to some aspect of nitpicking, but if I had started this discussion board I'm not sure I would have a free-for-all area of discussion on politics or religion.

I can also understand that things change as communitites become larger and the number of opinions grows. I agree that this has turned into a place where we all can feel free to express our opinions in general. I don't usually read through the sections in question but from what I can tell most of the time it seems to be done in a civil manner, there seem to be a few bad apples who revel in insulting others. I don't believe that not having those two sections would eliminate or even reduce that problem. They would just take it somewhere else, and (which has been pointed out already) there are several examples of nitpicking discussions that have turned badly.

My first thought is that things should stay the way they are, maybe with also increasing the amount of moderator communication and maybe even the number of moderators.

My second thought is that, if change is desired, limit political and religious discussion to subjects mentioned in the episodes/movies we nitpick, not simply any discussion about any event that goes on in the world. Not a perfect idea but I place it here for the sake of discussion.

I'm not sure why Luigi(or any moderator) is called 'arbitrary' or dictatorial. Even if that was true(which I do not believe) he has every right to do so. Rules, any rules, are arbitrary. They might be based on good reasons, but they are arbitrary based on whomever is making them.

As for dictatorial, this website is not a democracy. It was started by The Chief who wished it to be run in a certain way and has authorized people to do so who he believes will do this well. If people disagree with the way things are run, they can either contact the moderators or The Chief(who posts his address) to persuade them to change the rules, or go off and start their own website where things are different.

I do think having some more clearly defined punishments is a good idea.

I'm not sure what making the rules easier to see would do- most people who are not interested in a civil discussion would not read the rules anyway.

Dotter31: I'm not sure why Luigi(or any moderator) is called 'arbitrary' or dictatorial. Even if that was true(which I do not believe) he has every right to do so. Rules, any rules, are arbitrary. They might be based on good reasons, but they are arbitrary based on whomever is making them.
Luigi Novi: I respectfully disagree.

You know, after thinking about it, I kinda have decided to ignore this thread. I'll tell you what's going to happen - nothing. The status quo will remain. The Musings boards will remain. And Nitcentral will continue to decline. So this is my last word on the subject, not to mention the last time I look at this thread. I don't see the point in it.

I removed a post today from this thread, for the curious of mind.

Thanks for the optimism, Benn. As par for the course, I again register my disapproval with this new, vaguely self-loathing attitude you have begun to display of late. I say this as a friend.

It's your right to believe that you were treated unfairly. I did not witness any of this so I cannot say if you were or not. You also have the right to believe that the punishments are unfair, but most posting websites in my experience have similar punishments(a warning then a ban) so the treatment here is not totally out of line.

If the Chief wants to create a process as you describe, that is his choice. He does, however, have the right to run his website as he chooses, and he (or his designees)can be as unfair as he wants to.

Luigi, for my clarification, what about that statement do you disagree with? The last part?

Deleted an otherwise worthy post wherein the poster made the error of dragging in the Luigi/R dustup despite repeated warnings not to do so.

Very well, sorry about that. It was part of the point I was trying to make but I will try again without the Luigi issue. ok?

Ok what I am trying to say is that when a moderator uses his powers to enforce a permanent ban on a person that he is involved in an argument with he has exceeded the boundaries of fair and responsible usage of his powers. We do not allow police officers in the field to just summarily and arbitrarily yank the DLs of a person for going 5 over the limit. Officers have the discretion to issue warnings or citations and the judges then handle the enforcement of said citations. The officers also have rules and regulations governing their actions and there is a form of appeal should they exceed their authority.

Right now the moderators on this site get to act as officer, judge, jury and executioner. And while most of the moderators do an excellent job of restraining themselves from abusing their power the temptation to do so is still there.

There is no effective appeal if a person is wronged or the moderator exceeds their authority. As Mr Farrand himself has said he does not have the time to deal with things around here. So as for him running the site he does not run it any more and it is left up to the moderators to do so.

And rules are not arbitrary, nor are they to be arbitraily enforced. Rules and Laws are created by and for the public they serve. By removing any appeals or review process from the creation of rules you do not have rules you have whims of the masters. By permitting punishments that are excessive and able to inflicted at the whim of a moderator who may disagree with or tire of your disagreement with them and their POV with no review or appeal available is, at the very heart of the matter, not fair and part of the degedation and decline of any website.

So basically that is my biggest problem the moderators do not have restrictions upon how and why they may use their powers, basically having a free hand to be as abusive or not as they choose. There are few if any intermediate responsies available for punishments. Its like if the military had the only options send a warning or send a nuke. With very little in between.

My ideas would be this:
(1)Set a review panel for all "banning" cases.
(2)No moderator who is involved in an argument with a poster may "ban" that poster themselves but MUST go through the review panel
(3)Have clear and definative crimes and punishments set with clear and firm regulations on the moderators as to how they may impose those punishments.
(4) Have the punishments themselves be graduated from least to most severe. ie warning, post deletion, temporary banning, board banning, or site banning. And make it where a person cannot be dropped all the way to the last choice for the first offense unless such offense is the equivalent of a first strike nuke.

Either that or get rid of the musings boards al together.

Very well...perhaps the word "banned" was a bit too much for my opinion of the movie "The DaVinci Code"....BURNED is a lot better.

"I know it's not logical. " - Benn

Polls Voice: Who ever said the human race was logical? ...okay, now down to business, I vote for a pay increase...

Another thing I've noticed when reading replies to people's posts is that a lot of times, the counter argument is made with a lot of emphasis on the 'you' instead of the arguement itself.
Below I give a few examples. I'm not saying there's any intentional hostility on the author's part, just that it is possible to interpret it in a condescending manner.

I've always been taught that when writing (and even speaking), using "You" or the person's name as in the second example causes the response to sound like its putting the person that the response is directed toward on the hot seat, or the defensive. Many of the replies people make imply that the person who made the reply isn't thinking effectively or is flawed. Case in point, the 3rd example. Luigi's standard of logic... that sounds like sarcasm and is also provacative sounding. We all know Luigi will reply to a remark like that. Not saying he'd be viscious back, just that its those kinds of sarcastic remarks that lead to replies turning into flames.


"You say it’s the Musings boards. Okay, then. How do you explain the flamefests with Jwb on the Trek boards?" - Luigi

"Banning people does not cause such problems, Benn. It's the solution to it. Saying that banning started the problem is not only makes as little sense as saying that it's the boards, but it seems that you're contradicting yourself by suggesting it on the one hand, then saying it's not logical or reasonable on the other, and then yet again saying that you think there's a connection. In addition, doesn't this defy the chronology? Don't people get banned after they cause problems with trolling and flaming?" - Luigi

"As far as the Rene situation goes, yeah, my paragraph was contradictory. So effin' what? It's how I feel about the situation. I guess I'm tired of advocating the banning of this person and that person. While I may think Rene deserves to be banned, I'm not going to champion that cause. I know that's not going to pass the LUIGI NOVI standard of logic, but right now, I'm not sure I care." - Benn


"I do not see the need to attempt to "prove" a claim that I did not make, especially when the statement I did make requires the propsition that you challange me to support be false. I am not the one that claimed that the Bible "defines" marriage, you are. The fact is, however, that the Bible records marriages that do not fit your definition, which was, and still is, my point." - TomM (By TomM on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 06:19 pm: the homosexuality board part 8 )


There are others too from many different boards. I also know that many people aren't able to articulate what they're trying to say very well and when they get a response like the first one, it can make people feel like they must respond out of fear as being thought of as inferior. Yes, its pride issues that a lot of people have problems with (myself included), but its helpful not to hold meat in front of a starving dog. Some people are able to construct a written response ease, like Luigi has demonstrated with his 3 foot response posts , while others just simply can't. I think that if we all watch the tone of our replies, they won't end up putting people on the defensive.

Aaron, I do not believe that rules, at least ideally, are arbitrary. The ones that Phil has set forth for this site are quite well-founded and logical.

R - Rules and Laws are created by and for the public they serve.
??? Well, maybe in a Utopia?
Rules in a game are made by the game designer, not the players.
Rules on a website are made by the person who owns the site, not the visiters.
Laws are usually enacted by whomever's in charge of the country (King, Dictator, Ruler, etc.), or in some cases a group established to make them (Congress) & I'm just cynical enough to believe that they care more for their own bottom line then whether or not the public wants it.

Apologies if I've strayed into Political Musings territory.

Benn - Nitcentral will continue to decline.
Through the years I've seen all sorts of people claiming that Nitcentral has been declining/getting worse/been dumbed down/etc. The odd thing is that these claims come from a variety of posters who joined at different times.
Ancient Ones who feel it was best in the Ask The Chief days.
Great Old Ones who felt it went downhill when Phil added the censorware.
Oldbies who feel it was mistake to add non-Star Trek boards.
Middlebies who feels it's all Religious & Political Musings fault.

It seems like NitCentral's Golden Age is whenever someone joined, then sometime later when the bloom is off the rose, "Gosh, this place isn't as good as it used to be!"

Has NitCentral changed? Yes. People have come & people have gone. The site has undergone changes as well. If it hadn't changed people would complain about that. (Things may change, but complaining is eternal. )

Also what NitCentral means to each poster can change.
Most people come here to talk/nitpick their favorite show with other people who like that show.
Lea Frost seemed to fade away after DS9 ended. Rachgd stopped coming around because there weren't enough Buffy, The Vampire Slayer fans. Maybe there were other reasons, but the point is that what some people originally came here for changed & they saw no need to keep coming back. A pity, but it happens.

So has NitCentral really declined or is it all in the eye of the beholder?

KAM: So has NitCentral really declined or is it all in the eye of the beholder?

Amen to that.

Well, Star Trek is dead, and that was the reason for starting the board in the first place.

The only other shows (aside from some movies) that I usually comment on are Lost and Battlestar Galactica, both of which don't resume until the fall. Since I don't read many of the other show boards, the only things that interest me are the PM and RM boards, though I am loathe to post on them. Seems like now we are into meta-nitpicking, and that there are only about 10 people on this board altogether. I'm just not getting out of it what I used to.

Ancient Ones who feel it was best in the Ask The Chief days.
Great Old Ones who felt it went downhill when Phil added the censorware.
Oldbies who feel it was mistake to add non-Star Trek boards.
Middlebies who feels it's all Religious & Political Musings fault.

I'm an Ancient One. :-)

Influx: Well, Star Trek is dead, and that was the reason for starting the board in the first place.

Trek isn't dead. It's on T.V. right now. It will live forever!!! Plus, you know, Abrams new movie.

Yeah, I think I'm an Oldbie. That sounds around the time I showed up.

I think I'm a Great Old One, but I wouldn't chalk it up to the Censorware.

Also, the idea of "adding non-Trek boards" is kind of stretching it as an idea--lest we forget, Phil wrote a book about the X-Files. I was one of the board's first moderators and my topic was "Movies," which was not about Trek. Perhaps you are referring to the vast proliferation of alternative topics?

Thanks for the clarification, Luigi.

I'm an Oldbie, but if non-Star Trek boards are OK with the Chief, that's fine with me.

Right now the moderators on this site get to act as officer, judge, jury and executioner.

That may or may not be, but the Chief can do that if he wants because it is his site. There is no law or Constitutional Clause which says this or any website must be fair with its punishments or must provide people with the opportunity to appeal decisions made against them. I am assuming that Phil is comfortable with leaving moderators with that type of authority since I have not seen anything to suggest that he is not. Such treatment is also not different than that of many other posting websites(even those with registration processes)

This website is not a democratic institution charged with protecting rights or freedoms of its 'citizens'. It is someone's property who can do with it as he wants.

By removing any appeals or review process from the creation of rules you do not have rules you have whims of the masters.

That is the risk that is taken whenever any person makes use of someone else's property. This site is not a governmental institution that must treat you fairly. Maybe they should or should not, but they do not have to. Your recourse if you do not like that is to either start your own website with fewer restrictions or persuade the Chief or his designated people to change.

I personally do not think there are enough bad things going on here to warrant building an inflated appeals bureaucracy to deal with an extremely small minority. I also do not see how an appeals board would be any less arbitrary than the present system. I do think spelling out rules and specific punishments is a good idea.

Its like if the military had the only options send a warning or send a nuke.

Again, I have seen that sort of inflexible rule on many posting websites. I think this issue is being taken much too seriously. It's not life or death. I also don't think that kind of treatment has been the case here, I have seen many repeat offensive posts before a banning in many cases. I do think that a permanent site ban for one or two offensive posts is extreme in 99 percent of cases, but I have not seen evidence that this has happened(maybe it has, I don't know)

KAM: While the rules in a game may be made by an outside designer they are made so that the players all have a fair, equal and honest chance to enjoy the game and play it to the same level. Even RPGs whose rules are all optional must have the rules enforced in a reasonable and consistent manner in every scenario. And that may have been the original way nitcentral was the way it is now the game designer gets to change the rules in mid game, the rules are not very clear to begin with and they are very arbitray and mutable at the whim of those in power.

Dotter: MR Farrand has basically abandoned this site to be run by the moderators in charge. And while most of the moderators are respectful, decent and honorable about their powers they still have too much power. Unrestricted power corrupts. Private property or not this site is open to the public. It must have rules and procedures clearly, equitably and fairly spelled out so that all people are treated respectfully and honestly. That is the responsibility of anyone who opens somethign up to the public. I mean if I hold a yard sale in my front yard the county has regulations that say how I may do thigns and control how I may access my own property. Also if I open my place up to the public I cannot treat people differntly based on what mood I'm in or what color shirt they are wearing. Not just because there are laws against that but because it is dishonorable and dishonest to do so.

Also I am active on several other boards (2 Role Playing game related, 1 firearms related, 3 car related and 1 motorcycle related) of those boards all of them require registration. All of them have clearly defined and spelled out rules including what is and is not conditions for disciplinary action. Something this site does not have and yet needs desperately.

Of those boards 2 have an appeals board and process above the regular thread monitors. 1 has board administrators, lower level moderators and a higher level moderator/appeals board and then the site owners and the rest are somethign similar to this in that you have thread monitors and then the site moderator(s) and then the site owner. Also 2 of the sites have disciplinary actions between a simple warning and outright permanent banning. Suspension (a temporary ban), thread locking, or post deletion.

An appeals board would be more beneficial and less arbitrary if they are held to close and narrowly defined conditions of disciplinary actions. Thats the way all the other sites I vist do it.

Right now using ad hominium as an example you can define that to be any attack on any person anywhere on the planet, not just another poster on this site. It is so broadly used to silence people and enforced by some around here that you cannot say anythign negative about anyone on the planet without it being called an ad hominium attack. ad hominium this, ad hominum that, any criticism is ad hominium to some like its some kind of evil horrible plague. What needs to be done is to narrow the definition of what is and is not ad hominum and make it as narrow and precise as possible. And for the record this is the only site I have EVER visited that ad hominium is considered grounds for disciplinary action, especially if it is being said about someone in the public view. I mean on the firearms one if you used ad hominium to ban people there might,might be 2 members left.I mean you wanna call someone in the public view a compleate and total effing moronic lying SOB (like John stossel is) then that is your right to do so, your duty to do so in some cases and a protected free speech issue that anyone who has any honor will not interefere with.

And I'm sorry but even 1 instance of an abuse of power by a person in authority is grounds for removal of that person and a restriction or restructuring of authority so that that abuse cannot be done again. A person in authority needs to be held to a much higher standard of behavior and responsibility than the basic poster is and if the system will not do so and the person in authority will not do so then that person has lost all respectability and grounds to be obeyed.

As far as I know, no one really cares if you ad hominem people that don't post here. If I called John Stossel a big meanie who poops his pants, this would not be a banning offense. On the other hand, if I referred to someone on the boards (John Lang, Zarm, Luigi, yourself, whoever), that would be wrong and would probably be deleted. But if you can show me evidence of when people have enforced ad hominem rules when referring to public officials, I'd love to see it.

It must have rules and procedures clearly, equitably and fairly spelled out so that all people are treated respectfully and honestly. That is the responsibility of anyone who opens somethign up to the public.

That is not a responsibility of private citizens, that is a consideration. If people want to do so, they can, but they are not required to. If I hold a yard sale and I refuse to allow people with pink hair at it, I can because it is my property(and it is not against the law) Maybe it would not be a good idea, but I can do it.

I mean if I hold a yard sale in my front yard the county has regulations that say how I may do thigns and control how I may access my own property.

That may be true in your county, but the one I live in has no such regulations. Yours has chosen to have such regulations and it can do that because it has the right to control its own affairs, like private citizens have to control their own without listening to others if they so choose. Your county could do what the others do but it is not required to. The rules may be different in your neighboring county and if you did not like your county's rules you could either petition your county commissioners to change them or move to the next one(just like a website)

Also I am active on several other boards..

I certainly could not be aware of the rules on the virtually infinite number of boards on the internet.(I did say most that I have seen, not all) I only pointed it out to say that the rules here are not unprecedented.

MR Farrand has basically abandoned this site

How do you know this? Perhaps he looks without posting or uses another name.

An appeals board would be more beneficial and less arbitrary if they are held to close and narrowly defined conditions of disciplinary actions.

I still don't see how that would be different that the present. You would still have people interpreting the rules as they see them. It seems like a lot of useless red tape for a small board like this one IMO.

Right now using ad hominium as an example you can define that to be any attack on any person anywhere on the planet, not just another poster on this site. It is so broadly used to silence people

How broadly? You make it sound like this happens to dozens of people every day. I believe the number of people permanently banned from here can be counted on one hand.

and enforced by some around here that you cannot say anythign negative about anyone on the planet without it being called an ad hominium attack.

I have not seen any evidence of that. I would add that there should be little reason to say negative things about anyone here at all.

What needs to be done is to narrow the definition of what is and is not ad hominum and make it as narrow and precise as possible

ad hominem is attacking the person. I don't see how you could make that more precise without a long laundry list of specific and(pardon the pun) nitpicky rules. The Chief said (when the rule was instituted) that it was attacking people(instead of their argument) as a response to an argument or post of another person.

I certainly hope it is not being applied to a comment about people who are not associated with this site and (as MikeC said) I would be interested in seeing an example of that.

I am curious as to why anyone would need such a specific definition of what an attack is. It should not be neccessary to even come close to such a thing(intentionally) We are all supposed to be friendly here and I don't see why it is neccessary to draw a figurative big black line and say "this far and no further".

I do agree that more specifically spelling out what punishments result from an offense would be helpful.

And I'm sorry but even 1 instance of an abuse of power by a person in authority is grounds for removal of that person

In your opinion it is abuse of power. Even if I agree that has occured, The Chief and other moderators seem to have little problem with it, and as I have said, this is not a democracy.

JD - I'm an Ancient One. :-)
I didn't realize you were here that long, or do you mean you're a creature from the Lovecraftian mythos? ;-)

MikeC - I think I'm a Great Old One, but I wouldn't chalk it up to the Censorware.
That statement was based on a former poster who stopped posting here before I joined (I know him from another site though) & he felt the censorware was a bad idea.

R - MR Farrand has basically abandoned this site to be run by the moderators in charge.
I wouldn't say abandoned. He started appointing moderators because for various reasons he couldn't monitor the site all the time.

It's kind of like someone who owns a building & hires a caretaker or guard to keep an eye on things (except moderators don't get paid.)
He does show up occasionally & I believe he does check the site when he knows there is a problem.

He has, to the best of my knowledge, removed 2 moderators (Brian Webber & Rene) & I think he was involved in settling the dispute between Enterprise mod Richie Vest & Luigi Novi (who was not yet a moderator).

I've been around since the Ask the Chief days, but I didn't actively post on NitC until a few months after it opened.

MikeC: Well first off since it was the unspeakable one who was involved I dont know if Mark wants it all churned up again suffice to say he has used those words quite a lot more than needed. Especially when Stossel was involved. And secondly I'm begining to believe Benn may be right in that nothing will change the status quo around here especially given that no one seems to care about right and wrong and the unspeakable one's protected status of not being able to do no wrong.

Dotter: MR Farrand sent this in an email about all the incident with the unspeakable one: It is far too large and I am far too
busy with real money-making project to manage it myself. I therefore must
rely on the kindness of individuals to give of their time to moderate the
discussions on Nitcentral......You should know as well that if I had to give any significant amount of
time each week to Nitcentral I would probably discontinue it simply
because there are too many other endeavors that seek my involvement .............
I say all that to say that I'm happy for Nitcentral to exist but it can't
become a constant involvement for me. Which to me reads that he does not even check in unless things get so dramatic that they require his involvement.

And just because some people have no problem bending over and taking it when power is abused means that people who care should like it or do nothign about it. Power must be used responsibly, respectfully and within direct and precise restrictions. I mean what is wrong with having a definate set of what is and is not considered somethign like Ad Hominium or other "crimes" and their direct punishments. With little or no discretion involved in assigning those punishments. Fairness and equality.

KAM:Caretakers or security guyards though do not have the right or power to change or alter or implement the building owner's rules as arbitrarily or how they see fit. When I was a security officer I had to operate within strict and established procedures at each and every site for any action that was taken. I did not have the power to just deny entrance to someone or harrass them or whatever because I didn't like them or how they looked. We had rules we had regulations. OUr power was restricted to approved responses adn those responses where clearly set out for us to follow in three large binders that we where tested on and failure to obey them could cost you your badge. I like that and that is a good thing to have restrictions on powers. You give someone unlimited and unrestricted power they WILL abuse it. Thats what clearly defined and set regulations with fair and equitable restrictions on powers are for. I meann having the moderators have a matrix of crime and punishment if A occurs then actions B occurs tables or rules would be very beneficial.

And as for the unspeakable one this from Mr Farrand himself As for Luigi, I can assure you that there are many things that I wish he
would do differently and I have told him such and thats as close to a reprimand as I have ever seen him get even though he deserves a major one. Why is everyone so afraid to speak up against or to him about the things he does wrong?

But oh well forget it. Benn was right nothing will change. No one cares to try and fix the problems or do the right thing anymore. This site deserves to fold up and go away.

Ancient One here. I no longer post much because, quite honestly, I find that I am no longer willing to invest the effort into spewing pages and pages of text into a tiny little box on a message board. (And I do, actually, sort of miss the Ask the Chief days. I still remember the "no more Guides" week and how disappointed I was. God, to be a kid again.)

So for a more serious answer, I think the place started going down when the multi-page post became the norm. It's impossible to respond to the whole of the encyclopedia at once, and after a sufficiently large chunk of it, I find myself not wanting to bother. Those of you who have been around a while know that I used to be *all over* the Musings boards, but that was when one didn't have to read and respond to all of Monologion every single time one visited. That just made things more laid-back, and I think we're now at a point where we've lost that generally.

Of course, one should also remember that these boards date back to 1998, and that's pretty long-lived in Web terms.

As THE Ancient One^* (on the Discus boards, anyways; though I do date back to the Ask the Chief days as well), I think the [PRL]M boards tend to bring out the worst in people, thought RM has been fairly good lately.

I know that I tend to get snarky when I read/reply on [RP]M, probably because I'm as opinionated as all-get-out, and when I run into somene else as opinionated, who has the "wrong" opinion....

^* We all looked for this at one point, and I believe I had the earliest extant post.

And just because some people have no problem bending over and taking it when power is abused means that people who care should like it or do nothign about it.

Those people seem to be an extremely small minority. I don't see this rampant abuse of power that you speak of and two of us asked to see evidence of this. Again, the number of people 'silenced' (as you put it) can be counted on one hand. Given the hundreds if not thousands of people who have been here over the years that is an excellent record. I don't think any percieved problem is as rampant as you suggest.

OUr power was restricted to approved responses adn those responses where clearly set out for us to follow in three large binders that we where tested on and failure to obey them could cost you your badge.

If, as a moderator, I had to study a thick rules and procedure book, I wouldn't be interested. Moderators work for free. They spend time here because they like discussing their favorite subjects and want to ensure that everyone who visits here can do so as well. As a security guard, you were being paid, so of course you would need to follow procedures exactly. Moderators who do not get paid and spend their valuable time here should not have to spend time studying three binders full of rules and procedures. Things should be as simple as possible.

I mean what is wrong with having a definate set of what is and is not considered somethign like Ad Hominium

Ad Hominem is attacking the person- I don't see what else it could possibly mean. Do you know other users who want to know how far they can push the rules? Why would anyone need to know how far they can go? There should be no reason to even get close to something that could be considered an attack.

I guess that I don't view the 'power' that moderators have with the seriousness that you do. This is not the IRS or a police agency, nor a governmental institution, things where abuse of power are much greater concern.

Why is everyone so afraid to speak up against or to him about the things he does wrong?

I cannot speak for 'everyone', but it would seem that the Chief does not have a major problem with what goes on here.

You are correct, Scott--I remember in the search you came up first (I had mistakenly thought it was Todd Pence).

And R, without delving into the matter, let me just say there is a big difference between saying that ad hominem arguments against figures are foolish and bad arguments AND an ad hominem argument against figures will get you banned.

As a whole, I am not afraid to speak up against any moderator. I thought Rene was a ghastly moderator, "Sax" was a very poor moderator, and have consistently praised good moderators like Tom, KAM, and Butch. I don't agree with everything Luigi has done and have told him so, but I think he is a very fine moderator. There is no conspiracy of fear.

Only the blood red lettering used by a mass murdering plumber...

MikeC - good moderators like Tom, KAM, and Butch.
Wow. Thanks!

Yes, thank you.

I'm not sure whether I'd be considered an Ancient One or a Middleby.
I actually pre-date the boards, having got a Nit into the second NextGen Guide and been on the mailing list for the Newsletter, but I didn't get internet access until the end of June '99 and I think my first post was in August that year.

Deleted a post. Seriously, I've never had to ban someone before. What a weird thought.

Quit bringing it up, R. Quit it.

Mark Morgan: Yes sir. I am just angry and frustrated beyond all degree of belief at the situation and the injustice and everything. Wouldn't you be? And I'm sorry I keep bringing it up, but with the situation left unresolved in such an ugly and childish manner I don't just drop things very easily. If only he would just talk to me or acknowledge my humanity it would help calm the situation instead of continuing to ignore and insult me like this. Since nothign is goign to be done about it I give up on this route.

Dotter: While three binders may be required for a security officer I was not meaning to imply that would be needed here. Most of the other site's I visit have one page of rules, crimes and their punishments. But they are clearly and succintly spelled out for all person's to see as well as the restrictions on who has what powers. With power comes responsibility and all who wield it must wield it with Honor, distinction and integrity regardless of their compensation or reward.

MikeC: Yes you are quite right TomM, KAM, and Butch are all excellent moderators as is Mark even though I have been a bit of a PIA for him recently. For which I deeply regret and apologize being.

While I appreciate the vote of confidence, I don't really feel I've done anything to desrve it. RM has been unusually quiet since just before I took over as moderator. I haven't had to do much more than open new boards when necessary. I think I only moderated in the sense being considered here twice. Once I had to delete a bunch of irrelevant boards started by a troll (though I did leave the posts, (if they were not too irrelevant) that that person made in established boards, and once I disabled posting for a weekend to allow tempers to cool.

Sometime I wonder if my style is a little too loose. If I ever feel that because of it I am letting NitCentral down I will pass the baton to someone more qualified.

---

Quote:

If I ever feel that because of it I am letting NitCentral down I will pass the baton to someone more qualified.

---

I didn't take them that way.

The comment you quoted was not in pique or a reaction to any post; it was just my way of confirming that I know that I became moderator on sufference just as much as by my own talents and ambitions.

No your style has not been too loose. In mnay ways it is better to have a loose style that is more flexible within the boundaries than a tight and inflexible style that closes the boundaries further than needed.

You have been doing an excellent job even during the heated battles with Zarm and others on the homosexual marrige and jesus boards it never got too far out of hand.

And I want to give a shout out to Mark as well. I know my temper can be quite difficult to deal with (So I've been told by many people) and I can get to be a real major PIA when I am on a tear about something. But even though I have flirted with the limits of his patience and tolerance he has retained a mature and responsible attitude and is an example of excellence under pressure. I give you my salute and kudos Mark.

Though I rarely post to PM, never post to LM, and haven't posted regularly to RM in what feels like ages, I'd hate to see the Musings boards go. It may just be that I'm not watching many new TV shows these days, but lately the new posts in most of the topics on the board hold no interest for me. Lately only RM and PM keep me dropping in regularly, if only to lurk around without posting, though I like having the opportunity of discussing those things, if I choose, with an online community that I'm already familiar and comfortable with, and that I like to be a small part of, even if those topics have nothing whatsoever to do with the site's main purpose of nitpicking. And I find it easier to discuss religion and politics with people I already know I have something in common with, even if it's something as simple as the nitpicking of Star Trek.

Jeez, my first post here was over five years ago now, yet I'm not sure that I even meet KAM's definition of "middlebie". So what does that make me?

KAM's definition of "middlebie"
Just to clarify
1. The terms were all tongue-in-cheek
2. I swiped them from the CRFH Forum

In rethinking the original question posed by JD, I think he has a very good point in that the Musings certainly helped to "erode" the original purpose of the board (that is, to nitpick). I don't know if that's wrong or not. I do feel good about being one of the driving forces in destroying the original purpose, though.

That purpose has not been eroded, since people still nitpick movies and tv shows on the boards designated for those topics.

I don't think it eroded the original purpose of board. I do however, think its made this site more sophisticated, and probably even kept it going.

While there will always be nits to find, I would imagine that without active discussion about things, a site exclusively for finding nits would wither due to many of the nits are the same ones. It would get old after a while is what I'm saying.

I agree, without discussion about other things, we would run out of things to talk about(especially when nitpicking things like Star Trek which are not currently running new eps)