[Exilibur]

well I don't usually read the rules before i post at a new messageboard... Because I'm pretty confident that my tone of voice and question should provoke or break any rules...

I later found out that I actually had broken a rule after the chechnya thread... but, when you look at the discussion that thread started, I'm wondering why there even is a rule against such things...

When I'm thinking about laws, I believe that if all people could behave nice, then no law was needed. And so, If you behave yourself nice, you shouldn't break no law either. Now if somebody by mistake broke a law while acting nice, then it would be appropriate to explain to the person why it isn't a good idea to do so and so (like wrecks did with the bala spamming thing), instead of just pointing to a rule that says so and so...

I can't generally relate to rules, because they state a consequnce and not a reason. Like in the chechnya thread, where I was explained that political discussions was a problem, since people couldn't handle it. (Btw, I don't think a ban on political discussions is the right way to solve that problem).

So what i like is when moderators go in and nicely asks persons to stop bad behaviour and explains why the behaviour is bad. If that person is an ongoing problem, then it might be neccesary to act, and warn or ban the person. But instead of saying you're banned because you broke rule 23, then say youre banned because you have done so and so, causing so and so, several times, and disregarded my messages.

The problem here, and which is btw the same problem that [I thought] you made this topic about KWO, is that different moderaters act differently on bad behaviour. An easy way to solve this problem, is to set up some rules. Then the moderators can quote the rules, and argue that the person broke this rule in that way, and therefore deserves this action.
I don't like that idea. Because I think there are better solutions to the problem, which requires a bit more from the moderators, but make the board a much nicer place to be.

A solution would be if all moderators agreed how to act, instead what to act on. Then they could agree that if a person should get a warning, then a discussion should be opened about it first in the mods forum or something similar. Of course some mods might be faster to hit down on people than others, but instead of having clear rules that says so and so, then talk about if a person is breaking the rules or not.

And one more thing: Don't treat people equally.

This sounds fucked, but a forum is not a society like the real one, and there are some major differences. Firstly newcomers might not know the internet etiquette, and might break rules without even knowing it... we don't have parents on the internet, so in their case it's not the moderators task to act like the police. Help them instead.

Then there's persons who are always walking on the edge off whats accepted and whats not. Give advice to the newcomers, and be a bit more firm if they repeat it.

An old member could just as well take one step over the egde, and they ought to know the rules after all, so in their case it's probably because they don't think it would annoy anybody. Then send them a pm, or write a reply and explain to them why you are offended. and then solve the problem not as the authorities against an citizen, but more like a normal dissagreement between to people.

All this is actually pretty close to how BU is working now, as far as i can tell, and I really think it's making this a nice place to visit on the net.

So I'm just writing this to make sure that you don't overregulate yourself.