Welcome to Gaia! ::

As head of the Public Relations and Customer Service Department, and having dealt with many a mod in the removal of idiotic threads and slanderous people, it seems to me that my duty will be that of the direct contact to moderators and "customers", the good people of the Extended Discussion. Therefore, I feel it is also my duty to make sure that we present a good image, in order to look like the good guys, saving the ED from harmful and stupid n00bs.

I petition that we create a stricter rule system for the Extended Discussion. With harsher punishments, threads will not easily be spammed, n00bed, or slandered. Also, threads such as "My dog died." or "My girlfriend broke up with me." and the ever loved "Which is better? X or Y?" will show up less, providing a cleaner environment. Though flaming can be a good strategy, it can have dastardly consequences. Threads like that will eventually go down a road of hatred between its posters, and become a slanderous pile of muck, forcing the moderators to kick it out of the Extended Discussion.

Some of the sticters rules include:

1.) Logical fallacies. As some of you will note, not using logical thinking is a supposed no-no in the Extended Discussion. Examples that were given are such as this: "You say that because you are ___." "u ppl r all stoopid 4 thinking ___." "You are an idiot. You are too stupid to understand ___." However, other logical fallicies bring great harm to a thread. One such is that of the ad hominem argument, mentioned also by the ED. In such argument, which I have seen numerous times, slander can also be used. "You're a f*****t, so you're wrong." Well. Slander, discrimination, etc. However, it goes the other way around, as well. "You're sexy, so you're right." A form of discrimination against those that are not sexy. Attacking the person that has made the argument is an unacceptable form of presenting a logical argument. A third exapmle, one that is not mentioned, is that of a lack of research. An unresearched opinion can be harmful as some people cannot tolerate this. They will flame the unresearched person, thus getting rid of the spectacle of extended discussion. Running after posting is also a no-no. However, this happens all the time, and people spend their time countering the argument towards empty space. Discussion requires conversation. Discussion, also, is different than argument. Allowing emotions into your argument allows heat, and from heat comes flame. These examples have plagued many good threads.

2.) Pointless off topic posts. Though many friends inside posts do like to do this, it should be done on the side note of their opinion. I know I am personally guilty of this, in attempts to make subtle bumps to keep my thread alive. However, I do attempt to make posts that pertain to the topic, such as asking another question. However, some people post completely ridiculous posts. As someone that has presented my opinion in a thread, I believe to have a small sense of liniency. However, those who do not express their opinions before posting senselessly are guilty of spam.

And 3.) Results of breaking the first two mentioned rules. Results are those such as flame, abuse, spam, slander, and harassment. According to the preset rules, this results in banning or warning, no matter what. I know for a fact that this does not happen. Having become emotional on more than one occasion.

These rules, predefined already, need enforcement. Popular threads of such crimes are those that are extremely popular topics. The contraversies of homosexual marraige, homosexuality, politics, age, and sex are safehavens for people that break these rules. The moderators do not check these threads often enough for delenquints. My own thread has been guilty of numerous people showing up breaking the rules. Stricter enforcement is needed. Also, I believe there needs to be a subsection for popular topics. That way, numerous people can express their opinions first, and not in response to someone else's.

My idea for the thread announcing to the public is not one of "We are here to purge the ED." That is also against the rules. Rather, it is a public poll to see if there is a popular movement for a stronger set of rules and punishments. To some, it would mean that less n00bs and others would break the rules. However, some might try to break them to see if they can get away with it. With a stricter eye over the ED, however, someone attepmting to break the rules can be used as an exapmle. An example that we WILL catch you.

These are merely my concerns on the subject. I appologize for any confusion, as it is hard for me to put my thoughts into words currently. I believe with enough public support, and a calm, well-worded petition to the moderators, we can make the Extended Discussion a better place.

?

Indeed. I think a push to clarify the rules that are there would do the most good. That is followed by true enforcement of course, selective enforcement is not all to helpful.

Yes. I'm all for a uniform, true enforcement. However, I think that enforcement comes with stricter rules. Selective enforcement is all we've seen so far anyways.

Well, I suggest that we do not flame people. Considering that is against the rules already. Rather, we point out why they are wrong and link it to the rules they should have read. That'll hopefully shut them up. If not, we can point them out to mods. If they do nothing, well, we have something against the mods, don't we.

Repeat threads are a difficult thing to categorize. My suggestion is to put the popular topics into a sub-forum so multiple people can explain their views in full length as opposed to a response to another post.

Flamers will be warned. ninja Obviously, a large task force would be required, but flamers should be checked for in topics that obviously cause grief. Titles that sound aggresive on some threads are good places to check. They will be warned to stop flaming. Second time offenders get their red card, and be pushed out of that thread. Repeat offenders be banned.

Yeah, but you can easily see how well the existing subforums (politics, religion and morality come to mind) are working. Sure there are a lot of people who use them, but there are also a lot of people who don't. In fact, I've seen a number of threads that have said that they would post in the subforums, but more people would see the thread in the main forum.