Soldiers Guarding Poppies Not Rosa Parks

[SamKellner]

Didn't mean to step on your tootsies Warren.

It was BillC I was laughing at.

Your thread. Yes we can tell by the title.

[Free]

Ok, new rules on my thread.
[*] No smilies without content. You have to write something in order to use smilies.
[*] Smilies only allowed in quantity relative to quality of text message. No strings of smilies attached to specious arguments.
[*] To be determined

Didn't mean to step on your tootsies Warren.

Stupid emoticons do tick me off. It's like, 'I really don't have a thought worth printing so I'll just pretend I do' - by pushing this stupid button...
Say what you want, Sam, and then push the stupid button, but not all you want.
I reserve the right to establish 'stupid' button parameters.
Comment then push button as you like.
Not too many times.
Thank you

It was BillC I was laughing at.

Ok. Here again.
You didn't even care enough to identify the target of ' I don't have a thought worth printing/stupid button'.

How are we to know who it is that you are talking to. Bob's already confused who's, what, when and where.
Stupid comments directed at who knows where, really kills the discussion.

[Bill Cummings]

Ok, new rules on my thread.
[*] No smilies without content. You have to write something in order to use smilies.
[*] Smilies only allowed in quantity relative to quality of text message. No strings of smilies attached to specious arguments.
[*] To be determined

Didn't mean to step on your tootsies Warren.

Stupid emoticons do tick me off. It's like, 'I really don't have a thought worth printing so I'll just pretend I do' - by pushing this stupid button...
Say what you want, Sam, and then push the stupid button, but not all you want.
I reserve the right to establish 'stupid' button parameters.
Comment then push button as you like.
Not too many times.
Thank you

It was BillC I was laughing at. [/quot

Ok. Here again.
You didn't even care enough to identify the target of ' I don't have a thought worth printing/stupid button'.
How are we to know who it is that you are talking to. Bob's already confused who's, what, when and where.
Stupid comments directed at who knows where, really kills the discussion.

Free,
Got it! This is your blog so I will try to follow your directions here.
I suggest that you direct Bob to clean up this post and other posts that stray from your topic.
Bill C.

[Free]

Free,
Got it! This is your blog so I will try to follow your directions here.
I suggest that you direct Bob to clean up this post and other posts that stray from your topic.
Bill C.

Bob doesn't need to clean up anything.
Moderation really isn't the point.
Clarity of intent is the goal of any productive conversation.
Emoticons just dumbs it down.

In this crazy utopia Bob has built, where all participants own management rights to their threads, my rules of engagement:

Bring game - Bring brain
Stupidity is welcome but not well tolerated
Say what you want. Mean what you say.
Make it readable.
Be honest.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Ok, new rules on my thread.
[*] No smilies without content. You have to write something in order to use smilies.
[*] Smilies only allowed in quantity relative to quality of text message. No strings of smilies attached to specious arguments.
[*] To be determined

Free, please let me know if you'd like me to post those rules in the first post of the topic along with the date that you've updated them. That's where all Blog rules must be placed for people to know what the rules are. Rules are supposed to be established when you first create a Blog, but I can insert them now if you had forgotten. So please respond with a post stating exactly how you'd like me to add any rules that you want for this Blog and I'll put them at the top of your first post. Please write EXACTLY what you want them to say (including any introduction etc).

For everyone else, our current rules for Blogs allow the person creating the Blog to establish rules for conduct in their Blog in the first post. Free hadn't posted any rules for this Blog before his recent post, so there were no rules to follow. The "Blog" idea is still evolving (like everything else here), so I appreciate your patience as we work out the bugs.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Stupid emoticons do tick me off. It's like, 'I really don't have a thought worth printing so I'll just pretend I do' - by pushing this stupid button...

Sometimes less is more. I don't see anything wrong with signalling support ( ), opposition ( ), confusion ( ), or a whole range of other emotions and/or thoughts with a single button press ( ).

If you don't want them in your Blog, just clearly spell out the rules and let me know when they are violated. Blogs are intended to belong to the originator, and I (eventually "we") would like to give bloggers the freedom to present ideas in their blogs the way they want them presented. However, if your blog invites other people to comment, then it's up to you to establish rules that can be objectively enforced. If you state a rule that says "No more than 3 emoticons per 7 words of text", then that's reasonably objective. Similarly if you state a rule that says "No posts I don't like", then you have to let me know which posts you don't like so I can remove them (the "Report" button is very handy for that). Remember, that you can forbid any other posts if you just want to do a monologue. That's perfectly acceptable. It's up to the Blogger to set the rules. If people find them to be unfair or capricious, then they simply won't be encouraged to participate.

In all cases, please use the "Report" button to communicate with me about any specific post. As moderator, those show up very clearly for me and they generally catch my attention. When you write a report, you can state exactly what you want done. For example, if Free sets a rule that says "No posts I don't like", then he can press the "Report" button on any post he doesn't like and write "Please remove this post. It violates the 'posts I don't like' rule". When I see his report, I'll move the post to the "Removed Posts" topic where it will join all the other removed posts (I may also add a moderator's comment describing the rule broken and other information about the action).

You can also use the "Report" button to request changes after the usual 1 hour timeout. I generally make changes that look innocent without any moderator comment. Other changes might require some discussion and possibly a review by the US Hawks Board of Directors (which is still being formed).

[brianscharp]

Bring game - Bring brain
Stupidity is welcome but not well tolerated
Say what you want. Mean what you say.
Make it readable.
Be honest.

How can you tell if someone's being honest, and what happens if you determine they're not?

[Bob Kuczewski]

How can you tell if someone's being honest, and what happens if you determine they're not?

Under the current Blog Forum rules, a Blog originator might put this in his first post:

    BLOG RULES:
      1. I reserve the right to remove any post that I feel is dishonest.

Then, if he or she finds a post that they think is dishonest, they can use the "Report" button to flag the post. The Report button gives them a chance to explain what the report is about, and they might say:

     "Please remove this post because I feel it is dishonest and violates rule number 1 in my first post."

If I (eventually "we") feel that the rule was indeed broken, I'll move the post to the "Removed Posts" topic where it will remain until there is a review by the Board (if requested).

That's the current plan, and any thoughtful comments are welcome.

[brianscharp]

How can you tell if someone's being honest, and what happens if you determine they're not?

Under the current Blog Forum rules, a Blog originator might put this in his first post:

    BLOG RULES:
      1. I reserve the right to remove any post that I feel is dishonest.

Then, if he or she finds a post that they think is dishonest, they can use the "Report" button to flag the post. The Report button gives them a chance to explain what the report is about, and they might say:

     "Please remove this post because I feel it is dishonest and violates rule number 1 in my first post."

If I (eventually "we") feel that the rule was indeed broken, I'll move the post to the "Removed Posts" topic where it will remain until there is a review by the Board (if requested).

That's the current plan, and any thoughtful comments are welcome.

Thanks Bob,

So Free makes the rules and you determine if they're broken. I am interested in Free's reply but now it seems academic.

[wingspan33]

Brian,

The below "Blog Rules" were what Bob was suggesting that Free might place in the first post of his blog. It is not a declarative statement on Bob's part.

If "Free" felt that a poster to his Blog had posted a "dishonest" message, he could/would/should inform Bob. Then, as Adminstrator, Bob would remove the post.

Bob was not suggesting that he make any judgements regarding the violation of any member's Blog rules.

How can you tell if someone's being honest, and what happens if you determine they're not?

Under the current Blog Forum rules, a Blog originator might put this in his first post:

    BLOG RULES:
      1. I reserve the right to remove any post that I feel is dishonest.

Thanks Bob,

So Free makes the rules and you determine if they're broken. I am interested in Free's reply but now it seems academic.