Just posted: New forum and posting guidelines

[Jeff]

Posted here. Please let me know if this sounds reasonable/enforceable.


To accommodate both the interest in discussing psyops and "keyword hijacking," and the concern over how such discussions often proceed here by way of subject disruption and "thread hijacking," I'm instituting the following:

1. I've created a new forum, "Psyops and Meme Management," dedicated to the subject.

2. Original posts on the subject are still welcome in General Discussion.

3. One reply which introduces the subject to an unrelated thread will be permitted, but all subsequent discussion of "keyword hijacking" must take place in "Psyops and Meme Management". A link to it may be posted in the original thread.

4. Subsequent off-topic replies will be subject to deletion.

5. Habitual non-observance of these guidelines will be regarded as disruption.

6. I have copied this to the Posting Guidelines.

7. All new threads, and existing threads which haven't yet been "threadjacked," are subject to these guidelines.

I think this should be fair to all, but I'd appreciate your thoughts.

[chiggerbit]

I don'tknow. I think I'm burning out, because I'm finding myself really impatient with the obsessive one-note solos, Hugh and Chlamor. Other than that, it seems to me that what's at the root of the problem is taking threads off-topic, whether it's constantly introducing keyword hijacking at the least imagined opportunity, or flaming. I'd like to see more emphasis on thread-jacking.

[sunny]

What you propose in reasonable and appropriate, but like chiggerbit, I would broaden it to thread-jacking in general.

Flaming and name calling are getting out of hand.

[Jeff]

Agree with you both. Threadjacking and flaming are both general concerns.

And yeah, I'm burning out too.

[chiggerbit]

Flaming IS threadjacking.

[professorpan]

Jeff, thank you. Seriously, I feel like I'll be able to engage in interesting conversations again without being dragged into the mudpit with Hugh.

I had nearly reached the point of abandoning RI, but you've given me a reason to stick around. And I'm very grateful for that, because despite all the rancor, there are some really bright, interesting people who post here, and they shouldn't be beaten down by bombastic egotism every time they try to have a dialogue.

[chiggerbit]

Ok, I have to say that I think the solution is too complicated and awkward.

[Jeff]

Let's see how it goes. If it's not working we'll try something else. And let me take the heat for it.

The alternative, if Hugh doesn't begin showing consideration on other people's threads, is to ban him for disruption. The new guideline, and all the other attempts, are because I don't want to do that. I'd received a number of IMs from members expressing they were at the end of their rope with his conduct. And frankly - and obviously - so was I.

[chiggerbit]

Jeff, you don't need a complicated set of rules, which will be intimidating to new members, to deal with Hugh, and which will require serious moderating. Frankly, I find his theory intersting, and the Pollack thread ended up being one of the best. It is Hugh's obsessive-compulsive behavior which is the problem, not the theory of keyword hijacking, etc. It IS your board. If his obsessive-compulsive behavior annoys you excessively, just deal with the behavior. He shows no inclination to modify his behavior, no matter how many times you warn him. Just ban him however many times it takes to get your position across to him. But, for pity's sake, don't make a set of complicated rules to deal with him.