If people can manage to do that politely then that will not be a problem.

That is the essential question, isn't it? Can we trust people from either side of the fence to be polite and solve their problems without resorting to flaming. So far, the evidence is not convincing.

I'm sure with the next round of executions, people's attitudes will change.

We'll put a poll up soon asking members what kind of execution they would find the most entertaining:

• Guillotine
• Burnt at the stake
• Hung, Drawn and Quartered
• Pulled apart by four horses
• Necklacing
• Boiled to Death
• Stoning
• Flaying
• Crushing by Elephant
• Sawing
• Catherine Wheel
• Scaphism
• Crucifiction

Any suggestions are welcome - I'm sure we'll find ways of implementing them in the near future when needed.

Mmmm, flaying.
We're having skin tonight, boys.

You forgot firing squad. My favorite type of execution.

For one of them, rip out their throats and let them drown in their own blood.

Adding an introductions thread to the off-topic section is not going to change anything. People can post in it or not. Do you really think that's going to make people assume that they are beloved by everyone? Video games do not make people want to kill each other, books do not make people think that their fantasies will all come true, and letting people introduce themselves is not going to make them stuck-up. If they are stuck-up, they were probably that way in the first place.
The problem with allowing "(extremely) limited" flaming is that nobody knows where to draw the line. While I agree that just because somebody is new doesn't mean they should be holders of infinite get-out-of-jail-free cards, I also don't think that people should be allowed to flame them with the intention of "breaking them in". To bring up another analogy, new people are not a new pair of shoes. If you want them to be part of community, treat them as you would any other person on the forum and let them mesh in normally. You're welcome to disagree with them, find them annoying, heck, if you want to angrily punch your monitor every time you see their posts, go right on ahead. If they're not breaking any rules, they're not doing anything wrong as far as the administration is concerned, and we are the ones who should be dealing with this. I'm a bit sick of the vigilante perspective this forum has. Administration deals with it as it sees fit.

Well said, TheLastBanana.
I don't think Gotham would function if everyone was Batman.

Well said indeed. People should stop being such douches towards the new meat, even if they are in the wrong, you can just tell them politely.
I imagine noone would run any of the stores in Batman City, since they would all merely be rich, and at night they would all perch on their rooftops watching the skies being lit with thousands of batsignals while their eyes burned out of their sockets.

Ugh, I can feel my 11th grade english class trying to worm its way into my posts. Sickening.

A few issues with this model:
a) You are assuming that someone wants some other user as a part of the community. As such, if theres is conflict between users, this rule is not going to be respected.

Corollary: I realize that it's not the user's decision who is in the community, I'm just using it as an example.

b) You are excluding, if not outright castigating people who are a bit caustic by nature. These people might not be the warm rays of sunshine that you all seem to want everyone to be.

Corollary: Your argument will likely be "say something nice or don't say anything at all (or something similar)." By forcing someone to change their behavior, you are not allowing them to mesh in normally.

c) Based on circumstances, points a and b can be mutually exclusive. If you have a user who might be slightly caustic or toxic to other users, you can ban them or remove them from the community, but you do so by sacrificing your "we're all friendly and understanding and a big happy family"

a) While this is true, we have to give people a chance. I'm talking about outright flaming somebody on their first post - there's really no reason for this. Also, if you still hate the person later, we have an ignore system set up for the forum. Just use that, and you can pretend they don't even exist. As well, the forum has a lot of users and a lot of posts per day. There's no way this person is going to be posting in every single thread you're visiting every single day. In my opinion, one person isn't going to ruin the entire forum for me.

b)
I guess I didn't really make what I meant by this clear. If this person is really bad enough that they can't behave within the forum, they now fall under the group of people who refuse to cooperate. Letting people mesh in with the community is one thing, letting people off the hook just because they are new is another. The rules still apply to them.

c) This is a problem on any forum. We'd like to invite users in, but as I said in point b, that doesn't mean we aren't willing to sacrifice those who are making this hard to accomplish. Inevitably this is not going to be a perfect utopia, and nobody's planning on it being that way. We'd just like to make it bit easier to be a part of the community.

Good discussion, guys. My quick two cents:

If one person is "Caustic" enough to scare away other users, s/he's too caustic and the forum is better off without them. Of course, finding that balance is difficult - we don't want this to be a preschool complete with naptime and crayons, but we want those folks to feel welcome here as well.

That's part of my job, and why Data brought me on board: to make those hard calls and doing what is best for the future of the community. It's an art though, not a science; and I can't draw a line in the sand and say "these are the rules, or else ban!". I have to play it by ear, take everything within context, and try to guess at what kind of reaction/message it sends to the public.

edit: my 2 cents is worth like $200 after the exchange rate

The world economy is so up and down that by the time i convert your two cents i might be getting half a cent back. what's my incentive to exchange now?

Also, giant ranty defence of caustic personnel follows, in shrunken text for the benefit of all.

weasel wrote:

If one person is "Caustic" enough to scare away other users, s/he's too caustic and the forum is better off without them. Of course, finding that balance is difficult - we don't want this to be a preschool complete with naptime and crayons, but we want those folks to feel welcome here as well.

Mmn, depends what kinds of other users the caustic person is scaring away.
As much as everyone should feel welcome, there are a few people out there that i certainly wouldnt welcome onto my forum.
For example, someone overly sensitive (who would be a pain to have around) would generally not stick around too long, or would adjust their attitude on these forums, due to the presence of people like Eric and Paul. Someone overly aggressive, too big for their boots, etc, wouldnt either. They are mature, intelligent contributors, who burn the crap out of someone who is acting in a way that is going to make them not enjoy their time here, or is detrimental to other's enjoyment.
I think that provides a form of initiation that makes the forum as a whole gel better, those who stick around for more than 40 odd posts generally have the mettle to contribute constructively. I also think an administrative take on this would be flawed from the get-go, as A) the moderating staff form a relatively small portion of the community and B) it would be fairly unprofessional for a moderator to behave caustically (seraph is the exception).
I would personally hate to see DRLFF without people like Eric and Paul, as it would likely be like every other forum where elitism seeths from the moderators and they never have any community events.
Everyone who knows them generally respects them (for the most part, though most of the ♥♥♥♥♥♥ modders have a grudge against what Eric did ages ago) and support what they practice, and although they may bring a form of vigilante justice, they still bring a form of justice that the moderators cannot, just like the moderators bring a form of justice that they cannot (bans and whatnot).
As far as flaming and trolling random newbies for making a dumb mistake is concerned, its more of a situational issue, and they are usually controlled enough to not flame those who dont deserve it. In the event of something getting out of hand, the moderation team will get a million reports anyway, and thus the two justice systems will be effective.
The more caustic members, as long as they arent unjustified in their pursuits, should always remain a part of DRLFF, in my opinion. All of us who have been here a while know that they are both good natured and dedicated at heart. All of them, but Paul especially, love this community.
Oh god i never end those things well. Sorry if that sounds too much like "They are the greatest and deserve more head than any of you".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tl;dr: Paul and Eric et al form a crucial part of the community, and fill a role that moderators cant. they should stick around, and can get punched by the mods if they do bad stuff, like they always have. (See: Paul, now).

Disclaimer: This doesnt mean the moderation team is useless or whatever other offence could be taken, i just think that their form of justice works well in situations where conventional moderation wouldnt. Conventional moderation works everywhere else.

Jesus that was much too long a post.

THOR and Grif are not an essential asset to the forum, some people think they are.
I do not.
They are trolls who scare people away without good reason, sensitive, aggressive, stupid, illiterate, mature or intelligent all alike.
If someone is acting eccentrically it is the administrator's jobs to take care of it.
It is no average member's responsibility to take care of the forums as they see fit, for it will not always be fair or sensible.

That is a solvable problem.
Many more responsible moderators could be found. That would remove any 'need' for Grif or THOR.

Except in this case, Grif and THOR are the elitists.
I have participated in many other forums recently, and they don't have their own personal THOR or Grif, and NONE of them have people as rude and immature as here.
I wonder why.

I have seen many unassuming innocent members get flamed out of this forum.
I don't like it.
The new members make a few spelling mistakes and ask a few frequently asked questions and Grif or THOR come in and ♥♥♥♥♥ about it.
Those people think that will be their usual treatment.
They leave.
Wouldn't you?

I don't think this 'system' is working out very well.

I agree that Grif and THOR love this community.
They are very dedicated.
That doesn't mean that they know what is right or what is the best thing for this community.