Yay, I love spankings! Am I the spankee or spankor? Seriously though, I think skydivemom has a great point. For one, if it is problem to have to try to skip over the comments in question, wouldn't more comments by other members about what is so wrong about their comments add to amount of space to be skipped over? Plus, no matter if it is rcade, justgary, chicobangs, jerseygirl, or any other well intentioned member that tries to steer the offender in the right direction, to a new member it is just a faceless screenname telling the to 'behave'. Of course, with over 14,000 members, it will be impossble to get everybody to "ignore the behavior". Speaking for myself, some days it is real easy for me, while other days I wish I could reach through the monitor and slap the snot out of someone (don't worry, I don't have any children). Honestly, I don't really think there is a perfect solution. It does seem that we have taken baby steps in the right direction. The questionaire to join seems to have slowed the "your team suxor!!1!!1!!" and "who cares about tiddlywinks!?!" comments. New guidelines will be great, but you still can't force people to read them. Do you actually read the whole end user license agreement before clicking [yes] ?. I still think the best idea was a valid email address. Give some trusted members access to the addys (for those who prefer their email not be public), that way, the "kids" can get the attention they want without cluttering the discussion.
New guidelines will be great, but you still can't force people to read them. Do you actually read the whole end user license agreement before clicking [yes] ?. You're right, of course. But right now if someone, for example, does heavy editorializing on a front page post, we can tell them it's frowned upon, but like you said, to a new user we're just names on a screen. But if that name on a screen can point to official guidelines that says "no heavy editorializing allowed" it carries more weight. And of course, that user might not give a damn about guidelines, but continued breaking of the guidelines would result in being banned, and the user would have no claims/excuses of "it's not in the guidelines". I agree with you. There is no perfect solution. But we can get closer to a perfect solution, and I think detailed guidelines would be closer, a step in the right direction.
Venicemenace: You're right. In an edit I replaced a duplicated response to yerfatma with your nick. My apologies. The next paragraph was an agreement to something you wrote and that was where your nick belonged. Jerseygirl: As important, but not as interesting to the general population. It's not apples and oranges. It happens on the main site also. I'm sure you've noticed that. They chaffed my ass too. Remember? And they were dissenting (typed it correctly that time didn't I?) The majority of the commenters were of a different viewpoint than his. Hence "To differ in opinion or feeling; disagree." I don't have a problem with the admins closing bad threads. I expect that. What I fear is the deletion of certain arguments and certain "off-topic" comments. I know boards are usually dictatorships. I just want the admins to realize not everyone on the board thinks deleting those certain comments is a good idea. They can certainly ignore my comments. Maybe I am the dissenting voice in this case, but I am still a member of this community with an opinion on the topic at hand. As far as "insulting the entire member base" by claiming a minority of members can consistently alter the dynamic of a thread... Whatever the number -- 10, 20, 30, 42 --- we are all not equal members in terms of "verbosity," "skill at crafting humor," "experience," "popularity," "knowledge," or even level of administration. That's simply a fact. We all join as equals, but some become more equal than others. For an example compare us: You've been here almost exactly a year more then me. You've posted 100 times what I have and commented almost 6 times as much. You've proved your knowledge -- at least in the threads I frequent. You're better known. Your opinion obviously counts to a great many people. You've developed a reputation. Not too long ago someone even suggested you as a new style admin. You can't seriously believe we are equals in the impact we have on this community or even in some threads. There is a reason communities such as Sportsfilter develop leaders. Those leaders move and shake this board far more than any "troll" or dissenter. In this case I truly believe we gave the trolls credit for more havoc than they wrecked.
Somebody say 'spankings?' The problem with introducing spankings is that it would attract precisely the wrong sort of contributor. After all, no-one fantasises about being tied up and spanked by a liberal*. * Unless it's Matthew McConnaughey, of course.
Personally, I have a thing for Jo Frost (aka Supernanny.) I'd rather not look inside myself and discover why, but there it is.
I think detailed guidelines would be closer, a step in the right direction. I hope I didn't sound like I thought they would be a waste of time. More clarity as to what to say (or not say) in a post/comment will help. Another site I am a member of has administrators and moderators. They are clearly identified because it says so right next to their name. So when they tell you something it carries a little more weight. Maybe that is something to think about, as it shows the person saying, "that is frowned upon here" is not just any ol' johnny-behind-keyboard. And you are not alone forestv.
"Your behavior is very naughty!" 
Hey, maybe we can just say that when a knuckledragger shows up?
