What percentage of UG members have read the rules?

[Slinky Bender]

because I really can't tell.

(vote once in each section, please)

[justme]

'Understand' is a little vague.

[Slinky Bender]

It's interesting that so far at least 1 person thinks more people understand the rules than have read them. This is one possible explanation for people not follwoing the rules (i.e. "I don't need to read the rules. I know what the rules are").

[justlooking]

I'd vote in this poll, but I'm afraid it would violate the rules and I'd get banned.

[curious]

Originally posted by slinkybender
It's interesting that so far at least 1 person thinks more people understand the rules than have read them. This is one possible explanation for people not follwoing the rules (i.e. "I don't need to read the rules. I know what the rules are").

Maybe that person takes it to mean that of the subset of members who actually read the rules, X percentage understand what they mean.

[jseah]

Originally posted by curious
Maybe that person takes it to mean that of the subset of members who actually read the rules, X percentage understand what they mean.

oops....that might have been me. I thought that, but I don't remember what my votes were.

cause that is how I took it.

[celtic knight]

From reading the posts I understand most of the rules. To my knowlwdge I haven't broken any yet even though I haven't read them.

[vermeer]

I don't think it's realistic to expect people to read a long list of rules for whoreboards.

I vaguely understand that no links to non-advertiser whores are allowed, otherwise, it's too talmudic.

[h. von bingen]

i never read the rules.

but i think they basically say something like: "to live outside the law you must be honest."

[jp1064]

Nobody reads the rules...

you just know not to fuck with them!

[jp1064]

Just a thought...


If we followed all the rules, there just wouldn't be any posts...

ie: 0.10) Do not use threads as a means of "personal communication" with other members.

Aren't all our posts our personal communication with the other member's post above us in the thread or also placing a "quoted" post as the next post?

I know what Slinky really means by this rule, but how can you possibly avoid doing this?

Isn't this the most broken rule?

[BigMadM]

slinky, one of the problems is this. Following the rules are easy.
Absent minded people like me once in a while slip, and in the heat of the moment so to speak, forget that I cant ask that question, especially since I was accustomed to doing it for over a year and a half.
someone might post incorrectly and a few minutes later realize, shit, I posted in error.
Ive tried not to do it, but I think others might have fucked up like that.

[Wwanderer]

Two fairly obvious points:

- Aside from what the poll shows, I'll bet that the true percentages in both parts depends enormously on whether you count all UG members, anyone who has a screen name here, or reasonably active ones, say anyone with more than a 100 posts.

- As I and others have mentioned a bunch of times in other threads, the influence of the rules on the behavior of posters is probably greatly reduced by the fact that management at least tries to enforce some of them but treats others as mere suggestions or advisory guidelines. The UG regulars tend to know which is which, but newbies don't, and it takes a while to figure out. Imo it would be better to delete or list separately rules which are not really rules.

-Ww

[Slinky Bender]

Originally posted by Wwanderer
- As I and others have mentioned a bunch of times in other threads, the influence of the rules on the behavior of posters is probably greatly reduced by the fact that management at least tries to enforce some of them but treats others as mere suggestions or advisory guidelines. The UG regulars tend to know which is which, but newbies don't, and it takes a while to figure out. Imo it would be better to delete or list separately rules which are not really rules.

It's not that I don't understand your point. My point is that people don't ever read the rules to begin with. As such, it's not that they don't obey certain rules because they are confused by "selective enforcement" of the rules, because "you can't forget what you never knew". I think you give people too much credit in this regard. For every person who breaks the rules because they think that the rules are not enforced, since they read the rules and see certain behaviour, there are........ wait..... it's infinity........ you know, of all thee_mails we've ever gotton from folks who have been banned for breaking the rules, there have been loads of excuses (some as bad as "My dog ate my homework"), but NEVER has anyone listed what you think the issue is.

but also, look what happens when you don't read the rules and simply try to "impute them" (see vermeer's post).

PS Green means go, red means stop, yellow means go very fast.

[Wwanderer]

Originally posted by slinkybender
My point is that people don't ever read the rules to begin with.

You may well be correct; I think it is pretty hard to guess (the right software could tell you how many ever load those pages, of course) how many people do or don't. My intuition would be that most people either completely ignore them, give them a quick glance at some point early on in their UG career but don't really absorb much (partly because they are a bit long) or check them out in some detail only when someone they are paying attention to gets banned or they themselves are about to make a post they somehow feel might be a violation.

-Ww

[Dondee]

Slinky, is there a way that you can "force" a newbee at the time of registration to check off that he/she has read the rules? I know that they can "scroll" right through them without reading them at all, but you can state beforehand that they will be banned for non-compliance of the rules.

[jseah]

Originally posted by Dondee
Slinky, is there a way that you can "force" a newbee at the time of registration to check off that he/she has read the rules? I know that they can "scroll" right through them without reading them at all, but you can state beforehand that they will be banned for non-compliance of the rules.

That won't work.....how many people actually read through the entire license agreement before they check the box that they have read and accept the terms of the agreement when they install new software?

[Daniel_NYC]

Originally posted by slinkybender
PS Green means go, red means stop, yellow means go very fast.

You're Starman now?

[Wwanderer]

Originally posted by jseah
That won't work.....how many people actually read through the entire license agreement

Everybody should read that stuff; you are agreeing to some truly amazing shit down there in the fine print of those license agreements! ;)

More seriously, nothing is going to work perfectly, probably nothing will even make a big difference, but it probably is possible to improve attention to the rules a bit on the margins by steps such as Dondee suggests.

You could start with some large, bold and brightly colored font stating that the site has some unconventional rules and that members are banned regularly for violating them, maybe even mentioning the average number of bannings per week or month or whatever. Then you could put the rules that result in the most bannings up front, again perhaps in an attention grabbing font. If new registrants were forced to put a page like that up on their screen at least once, it would probably make at least a small positive difference.

-Ww

[JackT]

Originally posted by Wwanderer
- Aside from what the poll shows, I'll bet that the true percentages in both parts depends enormously on whether you count all UG members, anyone who has a screen name here, or reasonably active ones, say anyone with more than a 100 posts.

Good point. Why would anyone who never posts waste his/her time reading through all of those rules?

[Slinky Bender]

Originally posted by Dondee
Slinky, is there a way that you can "force" a newbee at the time of registration to check off that he/she has read the rules? I know that they can "scroll" right through them without reading them at all, but you can state beforehand that they will be banned for non-compliance of the rules.

Try registering today.

[Slinky Bender]

Originally posted by JackT
Good point. Why would anyone who never posts waste his/her time reading through all of those rules?

Agreed, but I think that's setting up a straw man to knock down WRT the real topic here.

[JackT]

no, just a comment on how inaccurate the poll data (percentage) may be.

[JackT]

I'll suggest a novel approach...

How about SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCING the number of Rules, and re-writing them to make the tone a bit less nasty?....


For example, Four Rules (i.e., which posters must follow):

0.10

14 (with added language prohibiting the REposting of something already deleted)

15 (but making it clear that there is an exception to this rule for advertisers) (also, here is where it may be worthwhile to include examples (like 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, etc.)

18

The other "Rules" are more like posting guidelines really: be nice, avoid flaming or useless fluff.



Maybe this (along with some explanations of bannings and other punishments every now and then) is a way to get better compliance?

[justme]

I think instead you should install a fuckhead detector. If every fuckhead were prevented from being assigned a UG password, I think that the number of people that didn't follow the rules would be decimated.

[FoxyMonica]

Originally posted by JackT
I'll suggest a novel approach...

How about SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCING the number of Rules, and re-writing them to make the tone a bit less nasty?....


For example, Four Rules (i.e., which posters must follow):

0.10

14 (with added language prohibiting the REposting of something already deleted)

15 (but making it clear that there is an exception to this rule for advertisers) (also, here is where it may be worthwhile to include examples (like 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, etc.)

18

The other "Rules" are more like posting guidelines really: be nice, avoid flaming or useless fluff.



Maybe this (along with some explanations of bannings and other punishments every now and then) is a way to get better compliance?

wow someone here with the same views as I....I'm in shock ;)

a classic UG ....DITTO !! is in order here lol

my after thought ....... I see posters here with a very high post count because they post one statement at a time , numerous times in the same thread , back to back, for example my post here would be divided into 3 diffrent post without any replys in between , lol if I did that my post count would be in the thousands . ...IMHO is cheating to achieve a higher post count
why not say what ya got to say in one post ?

xoxo GREAT topic SB

[h. von bingen]

are there cash prizes for a high post count? i thought it was just one more thing to get depressed about.

[Wwanderer]

I have to agree. If there is anything about my hobbying activities I find sad, embarrassing, regretable, pathetic etc, it is surely my post count on PMBs (in general, not just UG). It is entirely inconceivable to me that any more than a tiny fraction of those posts were actually worth writing or reading.

-Ww

[jp1064]

Let's be honest and upfront about this Slinky. Is this really a problem that it's made out to be? Seems like your recent banned users are up to what, about 20 or 21 now, how many new users came on board in that time? Considering that you have thousands of registered users, is it (banned users) that high of enough percentage of screw ups to waste your time on it, or do you believe that if they get away with it then everyone will start doing shit. If that's the case then you should be concerned, however I don't really think that the board will run "wild" if you didn't ban stuff. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know, you know better then I do, but it seems like some of the banned users were just trying to maybe post what they thought were legitimate reviews or legitimate questions without really knowing they were breaking the rules based on others posts. Why not just delete objectionable posts rather then banning the users. I've had posts deleted by you in the past, and I got the hint and didn't repost the stuff. Is it really that bad?

BTW, do you issue warnings before you ban someone. I didn't get a warning when I got banned (once). Maybe you could do that.

[jp1064]

Originally posted by JackT
I'll suggest a novel approach...

How about SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCING the number of Rules, and re-writing them to make the tone a bit less nasty?....


For example, Four Rules (i.e., which posters must follow):

0.10

I don't think 0.10 makes sense the way it is as I stated above. I think 0.10 should apply to personal backchannel communication via maybe e.mail which is turned off anyway. I don't see how you could enforce no personal comm, you'd have to delete three quarters of the posts on this board because we use it much more like instant messaging rather then postings. How the hell do you enforce that, no replys to a post?

[jp1064]

Originally posted by FoxyMonica
my after thought ....... I see posters here with a very high post count because they post one statement at a time , numerous times in the same thread , back to back, for example my post here would be divided into 3 diffrent post without any replys in between , lol if I did that my post count would be in the thousands . ...IMHO is cheating to achieve a higher post count
why not say what ya got to say in one post ? You can only respond to one person at a time (unless you do some fancy editing).

[jp1064]

Originally posted by h. von bingen
are there cash prizes for a high post count? i thought it was just one more thing to get depressed about. We have no "real" lives.

[milkman]

i read the rules-i think i even read them twice. i have to read everything twice.

[Slinky Bender]

Originally posted by jp1064
but it seems like some of the banned users were just trying to maybe post what they thought were legitimate reviews or legitimate questions without really knowing they were breaking the rules based on others posts

A) No one has ever been banned pst posting anything the remotely resembled a legit review

B) If a "legit question", is placed somewhere where there's a thread at the top of that section titled "Board Form/rules Changes –all Members Must Read:" informing them that they shouldn't be posting that question there, is it a legit question/honest mistake? (actually we're getting at the entire purpose of this poll).

Originally posted by jp1064
Just a thought...


If we followed all the rules, there just wouldn't be any posts...

ie: 0.10) Do not use threads as a means of "personal communication" with other members.

Aren't all our posts our personal communication with the other member's post above us in the thread or also placing a "quoted" post as the next post?

I know what Slinky really means by this rule, but how can you possibly avoid doing this?

Isn't this the most broken rule?

There's a big difference between responding to someone's post and saying "meet me at that spot we go to at Saturday 1PM", or "you friend Jack wants t speak to you, send him an e*mail", or "I left my e*mail addy on the Canine Board so you can write to me" or .........................

[theword]

Can someone give me the short version of why it's a bannable offense to post one's e_mail address here? I know not to do it, but have never quite gotten what damage would be done if people did.

I think most people read the rules, and understand them in principle. Having been a moderator elsewhere, I can tell you that a lot of people have an incredible talent for thinking that the rules don't apply to them for one reason or another.

[Wwanderer]

Originally posted by theword
Can someone give me the short version of why it's a bannable offense to post one's e_mail address here?

The shortest version I can think of is a single word: money.

-Ww

[justme]

To expound:

In the past, certain potential advertisers avoided paying advertising, but still used the board as a marketing device by culling ****** addresses.

[jseah]

Also to prevent the proliferation of backchanneling (i.e., if it can't be shared in public, then it shouldn't be mentioned period).

[JackT]

Originally posted by FoxyMonica
wow someone here with the same views as I....I'm in shock ;)



uh oh.

[vermeer]

Why were travlnman and bigbucks banned?
I don't recall anyhing offensive in their posts.
Alot of the banned members were valuable contributors.
Historically most purges, result in a weakened society. I.e., joe stalin, khmer rouge, etc.

I havn't seen any decent reviews on this site in ages - and I'm reluctant to post, because the rules seem so comlicated (I need to hire Hvb to interpret, and then get a "no action" letter from the Information Ministry, before posting).

Trust me I KNOW how it feels to have freeloading whore/johns trying to get free ads/publicty. But these shills are soon outed by market forces.

Give free speech a chance.

Bottom line: it WILL result in more ad$, and you'll be able to get those 48" chrome rims for your Escalade.

[JackT]

Originally posted by vermeer
But these shills are soon outed by market forces.

Give free speech a chance.


wow someone here with the same views as I....I'm in shock ;)

[h. von bingen]

Originally posted by vermeer
Trust me I KNOW how it feels to have freeloading whore/johns trying to get free ads/publicty. But these shills are soon outed by market forces.
i would almost say that this guy is fat al goldstein, but ag is too busy stuffing cinnamon donuts into his gob to do any work. jordan goldstein maybe?

btw, doc on ag's life at the anthology film archives' underground film festival.

[jp1064]

Originally posted by justme
To expound:

In the past, certain potential advertisers avoided paying advertising, but still used the board as a marketing device by culling e.mail addresses. How do you do that JM. This software doesn't expose the actual e.mail addresses, even if you have e.mail turned on. A regular user could only e.mail "through" the board and only one at a time (very time consuming). You'd need to be an admin to see the actual addresses. So I don't think you could trowl for addresses that easily.

[jp1064]

Originally posted by jseah
Also to prevent the proliferation of backchanneling (i.e., if it can't be shared in public, then it shouldn't be mentioned period). I don't understand the logic in this. You know it goes on anyway, but besides that, why would we each be interested in some other's peoples backchannel discussions. Instead of forcing the backchannel discussions onto the board, it has just eliminated most of the BCD or driven it elsewhere, or driven it to private e.mails.

[justme]

Originally posted by jp1064
So I don't think you could trowl for addresses that easily.

And yet, it's happened.

[vermeer]

I read somwhere that fat Al sent his son to harvard law, or some other facnypants school and was very proud. Then his son sued him for something or other.

[vermeer]

Slinky, if your objective is Mo Money + Mo Bitches, i suggest you let people post whatever the fuck they want.
BECAUSE this will create a more dynamic exchange of ideas and communication. In turn you will be able to monetize on this by selling more ads to the hos. Sure the hos will complain when they get bad reviews, etc. but this "freedom of speech" will attract tons of mongers, and will make ug a "must" for ho advertisers.

deadbeats and freeloaders are a cost of doing business. Think of them as loss leaders. (of course EGREGIOUS offenders will be have to be banned). Yes, people will always take advantange. But the net result$$ will be huge. And you will laugh all the way to the bank.

Let's be clear: I only believe in "free speech" when it's profitable. And believe me, the advice I give you comes from my own experiences in running a very similar business to yours.


You have a good thing going - don't let it become irrelevant and die.

[curious]

Originally posted by vermeer
I read somwhere that fat Al sent his son to harvard law, or some other facnypants school and was very proud. Then his son sued him for something or other.

Isn't education great! :D

[milkman]

whats this hang-up withy ag...you callled me him in a previous post and now you're calling vermeer ag. ag is a legend and you should not take HIS name in vain.

[littleguy]

Well, *I* don't understand the poll (LOL)

"What percentage of UG members have read the rules? Part 2: and understand the rules ?"

How would *I* know ?

First of all, some of the board software needs to change. Trust me. I do some of this for a living.

When somebody signs up, and even when existing members "log on", have a "pop up" box come up and say something like "You MUST read the rules before posting (again)" There should be a link within this box to the rules.

They click on the link and get to the rules. At the end of the rules, just like an on-line licensing agreement there is a check box. "I have read the rules and agree to abide by them."

Now, as for the rules themselves. There are WAY too many of them and they are WAY too wordy. People don't like to read what they don't WANT to read. You have to keep them short and simple, otherwise they will go to the end and simply check the "agreement" checkbox.

You repeat a certain rule (I forget which) MANY times. You also have some rules that are written tongue-in-cheek, or at least appear to be (like "Don't pester the APM"). People see that and assume you are joking and they need not take the rules seriously.

If there are 2 or 3 VERY important rules, have those rules, written very briefly, pop up every time someone signs in whether they've agreed to having read the rules or not. It's very easy to close that little pop up box.

Just my $.02 (2 cents (LOL))

[Slinky Bender]

Originally posted by littleguy

When somebody signs up have a "pop up" box come up and say something like "You MUST read the rules before posting "

You know, some day, someone on this board is actually going to look at the current state of facts before stating something, and it's going to give me a heart attack.

[pjorourke]

Originally posted by Wwanderer
You could start with some large, bold and brightly colored font stating that the site has some unconventional rules and that members are banned regularly for violating them, maybe even mentioning the average number of bannings per week or month or whatever.Kind of like when they used to cut peoples heads off and leave them on a pole at the gates of the city as a warning to future malfactors.

[Slinky Bender]

You mean like counting the bannings for a certain offense, and leaving them up as "sign posts"?

Besides, who's banned? (no one pays any attention to anything around here).

PS I think the word is "pike".

[NOYL]

Originally posted by slinkybender
Besides, who's banned? (no one pays any attention to anything around here).

PS I think the word is "pike".

Answer: no one.

You could become Vlad the Impaler.

[coldman3705]

I see so many questions and answers all over the threads on this website, I must be retarded....for instance I read that Walt637 got banned...why? And also how are members...Bronze or Silver...etc.. The rules are too long, who has the time ..I want hookups not rules and regs. LE has laws, rules and regs...this must be a new model....for LE. How can we complicate things more? Lets infringe upon peoples civil liberties...lets just go get some badges.