How to add a site rule?

[Abby Normal]

I would like to know how one would go about getting a site rule added?

Specifically a rule that prohibits anyone from stating they have, or might have a certain suspect/witness/victim without revealing who it is. It is nothing but a tease, adds nothing to the discussion, creates dissention among posters and I would argue is along the lines of trolling. It is also, apparently not an uncommon thing, and takes up bandwith.

Who on here would be in favor of such a rule?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Absolutely , there is nothing wrong with having suspects , and theories, its all part and parcel of Casebook..
However stating that you suspect you know the Identity of the Ripper, and then proceed in dangling a carrot , throughout correspondence, is not beneficial to anyone.
I am not advocating , that everyone should reveal everything, especially if an impending book, but in cases of troll type postings, there should be a site rule.
Regards Richard.

[Ally]

I think we should add a site rule that states that anyone presumptuous enough to tell the owners of the site what ought to be allowed on their site or attempt to coerce their opinion through mob rule should be immediately banned.

[Rosella]

I agree. Unless there is a publication or similar in the offing that sort of post adds nothing to discussion, research or anything else. I would be in favour of a ban.

[Abby Normal]

I think we should add a site rule that states that anyone presumptuous enough to tell the owners of the site what ought to be allowed on their site or attempt to coerce their opinion through mob rule should be immediately banned.

Hi Ally
Im not trying to do any of those things. Its an honest question.and an honest opinion.

I believe in democracy and going along with that the right to free speech(which would include anyone who would want to make a post doing what I ask should be prohibited-so I see the validity in a counter argument).

Im honestly not just trying to be a jerk. or coerce anyone or start a mob rule.

Admin
I apologize if ive over stepped the line and please delete this thread if you see fit.

And I would very much not want to be banned as I honestly love this site.

[Hatchett]

Hi everyone.

I agree with the premise. However, I understand Ally's displeasure. Perhaps a more diplomatic way of approaching this would be to ask whether it is possible to request from Admin that such a rule be considered.

Best wishes.

[Ally]

I believe in democracy and going along with that the right to free speech(which would include anyone who would want to make a post doing what I ask should be prohibited-so I see the validity in a counter argument).

.

Ah yes, the old free speech/democracy thing. Of course that presumes that this is a democracy, which it isn't. It is actually fairly permissive in terms of free speech, which you claim to champion (while advocating censoring others merely because you find them annoying.)

Which begs the question, if we start banning speech merely because it's annoying, where precisely does that end? Just how many people/topics do you think would last if the only criteria for banning is that they are annoying and unproductive?

I imagine the entire suspect board and half the posters would be gone in a blink if that's the criteria used for censorship.

[RivkahChaya]

Maybe what we need is a new category of thread, under "Suspects," for example, we could have "I've got a secret," for people who want to state that they have a viable suspect without revealing who it is. Some people might want to use it to announce upcoming publications, or solicit research assistance-- I can think of reasons for this type of thread that aren't trolling-- but any kinds of troll threads that were put in other places but were essentially "I'll tell you next year," or whatever, could go here. People can then ignore, or even block this whole category. On the flip side, anyone who reads threads here has no right complaining about what was stated upfront.

This is just off the top of my head, and I realize sounds a little flippant, but I'm really trying to think of an honest solution to the problem of people who want to avoid threads that have the feel or appearance of trolling, but are not so overt that the can be banned of other grounds.

I know there are book and creative writing threads, but there isn't anything specifically for someone who wants to create a teaser for their publication to try to get us to go buy it. Is there a rule against that? It certainly seems like the kind of thing that could have a place as long as there was fair warning.

[Ally]

This is just off the top of my head, and I realize sounds a little flippant, but I'm really trying to think of an honest solution to the problem of people who want to avoid threads that have the feel or appearance of trolling, but are not so overt that the can be banned of other grounds.
.

The solution for people who want to avoid threads that have the appearance of trolling is to stop clicking on them once you realize the content. The location is irrelevant.

Anyone who is being this annoyed by this is doing it to themselves. That thread was clear from post one what it was going to be like. There were 40-something pages of responses. That thread would have died in 2 pages if not for all the people who couldn't stop themselves from being annoyed by it somehow being forced against their will to keep responding.

[curious4]

Ah yes, the old free speech/democracy thing. Of course that presumes that this is a democracy, which it isn't. It is actually fairly permissive in terms of free speech, which you claim to champion (while advocating censoring others merely because you find them annoying.)

Which begs the question, if we start banning speech merely because it's annoying, where precisely does that end? Just how many people/topics do you think would last if the only criteria for banning is that they are annoying and unproductive?

I imagine the entire suspect board and half the posters would be gone in a blink if that's the criteria used for censorship.

Exactly. If you find a thread annoying stop reading it. If you find a poster annoying, block them.

Simple really and won't stop everyone enjoying what they find useful and interesting.

Best wishes
C4

[Steadmund Brand]

The solution for people who want to avoid threads that have the appearance of trolling is to stop clicking on them once you realize the content. The location is irrelevant.

Anyone who is being this annoyed by this is doing it to themselves. That thread was clear from post one what it was going to be like. There were 40-something pages of responses. That thread would have died in 2 pages if not for all the people who couldn't stop themselves from being annoyed by it somehow being forced against their will to keep responding.

Thank you Ally!!!!

you beat me to that response....and said it far better (and nicer) than I would have!!

Steadmund Brand

[Ally]

Such foul slander! I am never nice, much less "nicer" than someone else. The very idea. Name your seconds, sir!

[Hercule Poirot]

I would like to know how one would go about getting a site rule added?

Specifically a rule that prohibits anyone from stating they have, or might have a certain suspect/witness/victim without revealing who it is. It is nothing but a tease, adds nothing to the discussion, creates dissention among posters and I would argue is along the lines of trolling. It is also, apparently not an uncommon thing, and takes up bandwith.

Who on here would be in favor of such a rule?

It seems quite clear you're talking about Pierre's thread.

In my opinion, he isn't trolling at all. He introduced the topic in a curious manner but by doing do is not acting as a troll if I refer to the usual definition given by Wikipedia:

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

I'd say he wasn't constantly arguing in a disruptive way. Actually, more than 90% of the content came from members saying just about anything that came to their mind seeding the frustration experienced by many. What we must admit is how so many have proved to be immature.

Did he attack or provoke anyone? Was he disrespectful in his responses? Not at all.

Instead of democratically prohibiting (what a contradiction!) any given behaviour, maybe someone should write a paper on how a suspect should be introduced, how to gather evidence, how to analyse evidence, how to validate a theory or conclusion and submit it to peers.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[Steadmund Brand]

Such foul slander! I am never nice, much less "nicer" than someone else. The very idea. Name your seconds, sir!

Duel in Baltimore in April... it's on!!

Steadmund Brand

[Ally]

Weapon of choice: Pineapple and vodka.

I've survived all such conferences so armed.