by BAM@Cyberscrewed.tk on February 7th, 2007

BAM@Cyberscrewed.tk

Question

Help answer this question below.

We are forming the answerbag constitution to govern all users and minimise idiocy, what would you like to add?

  • Like
  • Report

Answers. 33 helpful answers below.

  • by Darryl61 on May 5th, 2007

    Darryl61

    Quite frankly, I can only add that there is already an answerbag constitution. It is called the "terms of use" and has been clearly defined by AB admin.

    • Like
    • Report

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Arisztid on August 20th, 2007

    Arisztid

    ~~I have been asked to break down the document and provide input on it. I answered it twice due to the lengthiness of this answer. The analysis is at the bottom of the answers page for this question.~~

    I have been avoiding commenting about this question. It has annoyed me since I first came, however, I have the belief that I should walk away rather than make my displeasure known.

    However, due to recent developments, I see no need to keep my opinion to myself any further. I have no need to concern myself with not offending you.


    This is silly and inapplicable even if it was not silly. It is also discriminatory against newcomers. I shall address that at the end of this reply... in depth.

    ~~Editing in some words about dyslexics and non native English speakers at the very end.~~

    This is a paramilitary, authoritarian approach to policing an INTERNET WEBSITE. Not only that, but you do not have any more authority than the most wet-behind-the ears newcomer. You threaten with various dire threats or thinly veiled threats but you cannot do a thing. You cannot stop anyone from saying or doing anything on this great grand Internet.

    What are you going to do? Are you going to reach through the monitor and punch people for breaching your code of AB conduct? Are you going to issue a violator a ticket or a fine? If so, might I ask how you shall manage such a feat?

    Strutting, pounding your chest, and blowing your bugle is just plain silly. You are not an admin or a mod on this website. There is NO Army. Any Army is in your mind. You cannot ban or otherwise affect another user in any way.

    Before you preach your AMENDMENTS, I would suggest you inspect your own behavior for compliance.

    For ONE example:


    "AMENDMENT 6 (LMD Article)
    Any negative rating given must be accompanied by a comment why such rating was given."

    This is a very good idea. However, you do not practice what you preach. In this comment thread you stated the exact opposite of AMENDMENT 6... http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/1237974 :

    Avatar BAM@Cyberscrewed.tk Aug, 18 2007 at 07:41 PM
    ... snip... "This is not a question and downration without comment is perfectably acceptable."

    I am certain that if I cared enough I could find many other instances of you violating your own code of AB conduct.

    Your attack of myself, Keysha, and Lily Why in that comment thread I just listed is, in and of itself, in violation of your code of conduct. See AMENDMENT 19.

    "AMENDMENT 19 (pasobrian pacifist clause)

    Arguments to the point of insults are pointless and frowned upon, such things are qualified to be downrated."

    He who lives in glass houses had best not cast stones.

    ------------

    Edited to add something I said from the comment thread:

    Newcomers are no better nor worse than the oldest member on here. Neither have more or less rights than any other member. Neither have more or less value or more or less intelligence.
    .
    Newcomers have every right to express themselves and every right to make errors. Newcomers also ask some excellent questions and provide some excellent answers. They also do some less than excellent ones. JUST LIKE THE OLD TIMERS.

    --------------

    Further elaboration upon the above, not from the comment thread:

    New blood is what keeps a website alive. This "amendment" thing, if it was able to be applied, would drive away any newcomer before they even posted. Look at it. Think about what YOU would feel like, and I am using the generic "you", if you were new here and saw THAT as policy. Would you stay?

    Hardly.

    If this policy was applied, AB would wither and die as newcomers stopped coming with their fresh ideas. New blood would not replace old blood as the natural ebb and flow of a website drew oldtimers AWAY and nobody came to replace them. This place would get a worse reputation than Yahoo Answers as word spread that a newcomer had to tow a paramilitary line and cannot make even the slightest error. According to this document, they cannot even ask a QUESTION until, I believe it was, Level 5!

    The author of this "document" does not like newcomers. We ALL were newcomers at one time.

    This document, if applied, would NOT stop the trolls. The trolls do not care. The ones it would stop are the newcomers who want to be good, contributing members.

    Think about that please.

    Yes, an attempt to clean up the site is good. NO, it is not YOUR job to do it. It is AB Staff's, with the assistance of the Community Leaders, jobs to do it. Each member has tools provided by AB to assist: the TOS, the flagging system, the feedback link, and, now, Community Leaders with moderator powers (pardon me for referring to you, CL's, as inanimate objects). THOSE are the tools we should use.

    It is not YOUR job to police what others ask. If they ask excessive fluff and generally bad questions, it shall be made evident to them that it is not liked by the lacking in response or by AB action or CL action. The person asking it shall, hence, not ask as much unless s/he is a troll.

    If s/he is a troll, you are NOT going to influence that person no matter what you do.

    You have some good points, however, guide with a gentle hand rather than a police baton upside the head.

    You are not the General of AB. You are a member. You hold no more or less weight than myself, a level 60, or a level ONE.



    ~~~Edited in from the comment thread because I want this to be here for everyone to read:

    There are non native English speakers here.

    There are also dyslexic members here. I am dyslexic and I can tell you that it takes some work to put out a correct post when my dyslexia is cracking. I reverse words, reverse letters in words, I drop words from sentences, and I can sometimes drop whole sections of sentences. Dyslexics can also forget punctuation marks.

    I am able, with training, to write proficiently but not all dyslexics can.

    There are also members who have not has a good an education in the English Language as other members. Their writing is no up to "par" according to the OP's manifesto. This is not their fault: it is the fault of the educational system and, even though their writings might not be up to par by the manifesto and they might even not be able to get their thoughts across as well, they have the right to say what they want without criticism.

    The OP is setting the bar a bit high when everything is taken into account. Add to the list of newcomers that would be run off the following: non native English speakers, dyslexics, members who have not had as much education in the written English language as others, and anyone with a learning disorder that interferes with fluent speech.

    Having these deficits does not make their input any less valid and any more "worthy" of criticism as any other member. In fact, if these members are treated with a gentle hand they relax and learn. With dyslexics, I can tell you, the more pressure you put on a dyslexic the more trouble they are going to have. As I said, I have, mostly, overcome it, however, I remember what it was like to overcome.

    • Like
    • Report

    119 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by anonymous on April 25th, 2007

    anonymous

    your internet ego is astounding.

    "men must be governed"

    get out, please.

    • Like
    • Report

    11 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Your Conscience on February 7th, 2007

    Your Conscience

    But then you might take the fun out of answerbag, and how can you govern it. what makes you think you can choose between right and wrong.

    I have a dream that one day these nations that make our beautifull world will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (sorry ladies) are created equall."

    • Like
    • Report

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Andy Is Wicked Married to Penal Colony on February 7th, 2007

    Andy Is Wicked Married to Penal Colony

    Who is we exactly? Okay, what the hell. Better spelling and grammar and a ban on stuff sounds better as a text message.

    • Like
    • Report

    4 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by buzz123456 on May 5th, 2007

    buzz123456

    In my opinion this is idiocy, this is a joke right? This site is what it is because of all users, a few people with way too much time on their hands and who take this site way too seriously wish to form AB constitution. Just get on and go for the ride, quit whining, get out more!

    • Like
    • Report

    4 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by P. W. Pasobrio loves Marines on May 5th, 2007

    P. W. Pasobrio loves Marines

    No more fighting. Any conflicts of opionion may not denagrate into full out name calling and bashing for any reason. Which means no more calling people gay or telling them they're crazy because you don't agree with them.
    And when someone tells you enough it means enough. Especailly if your posting on their answer.

    • Like
    • Report

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Ender is back.. And slightly confused. on August 21st, 2007

    Ender is back.. And slightly confused.

    I, personally, think this is a bad idea. Who are we to say what others can and cannot do? I don't think that one group of people should lay down guidelines for a whole community, especially in a condescending way.

    Secondly, what defines idiocy? Lack of question marks? Bad grammar? What if someone doesn't speak English as their first language? Who's to say that lack of compassion and understanding isn't idiocy, or lack of a desire for peaceful and civil resolutions? We can't run around labeling everyone an idiot just because they make spelling mistakes.

    I think that we should just continue along as we have, and continue to be helpful and understanding, not elitist and fascist.

    • Like
    • Report

    28 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Anonymous on May 5th, 2007

    Anonymous

    Having had a look at your amendments, I would suggest that as much as I think you are a great contributor BAM, this is going a bit far. It is nice that you want to make AB a better place, and I am all for good spelling and grammar, no text style questions, no capitals etc, but there is a much friendlier and more inclusive way to achieve this. We can direct new users with polite comments toward better online behaviour. Also do not forget that English is not everyone's first language on AB, and by cutting out people who are having trouble with English may mean that we lose out on valuable differing opinions. I like the idea of what you are trying to do but I think you are going about it in the wrong way.

    • Like
    • Report

    8 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Little Miss Dangerous on February 7th, 2007

    Little Miss Dangerous

    I would add that

    If you are going to down rate, make a comment as to why, unless of course you're a troll.

    and

    No religion bashing, regardless of faith or lack thereof.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Owner of the GD Universe on May 26th, 2007

    Owner of the GD Universe

    "Eve ry lack of question mark in a question is an immediate downrate, no leniancy."
    .
    .
    Straight from the profile of His Majesty, BAM@Cyberscrewed.tk.
    .
    Eve ry --> Every
    .

    LENIANCY --> LENIENCY
    .
    He seems to be demanding so much from others while making two errors in that same sentence...
    .
    It only means one thing to me...

    • Like
    • Report

    4 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by christine alyssa on August 21st, 2007

    christine alyssa

    Sorry if I intruded on anyone by asking this, but what exactly is a "troll?" It was used servel times here, and I'm a "newbie" and have absolutely no idea what the term means.

    • Like
    • Report

    4 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by tomsims on May 26th, 2007

    tomsims

    One cannot givern the ungovernable or minimize idiocy. It is a fact of life.

    Murphy's Law # something or another: Nothing is fool-proof because fools are such geniuses.

    Thomas Jefferson - That government governs best that governs least.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by Cowboy-Matter of Fact on May 5th, 2007

    Cowboy-Matter of Fact

    Minimalization of idiocy is a task yet to be perfected. Please don't try this at home.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by shopaholic on February 7th, 2007

    shopaholic

    NO trolls if you want to give something a negative rating you MUST give a reason.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by Anonymous on February 7th, 2007

    Anonymous

    Who is "we"? And how are "we" going to enforce the rules? Is this something the staff is going to help enforce, or is it like the numerous "Anti Troll" clubs?

    I'd be for it if the staff would help enforce the rules and standards.

    • Like
    • Report

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Jewel on August 21st, 2007

    Jewel

    I think it is a stupid idea. There are already rules and some forms of enforcement. I don't agree with vigilanties. Especially on an internet site.

    • Like
    • Report

    13 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by P. W. Pasobrio loves Marines on May 6th, 2007

    P. W. Pasobrio loves Marines

    Got another one. Anyone caught harrassing another member is to be immediatly placed in the penalty box.Oh, and as your rating goes up your ability to point goes up by five points.

    • Like
    • Report

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by duchovney on May 5th, 2007

    duchovney

    well i am an idiot dont do it

    • Like
    • Report

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Arisztid on August 22nd, 2007

    Arisztid

    This is my second answer so, please, no points upping me. Points down are fine but I do not want anyone thinking that I am aiming for points, which I am not. I am answering BAM's request for me to break it down.

    Emotions off, brain engaged.

    First, I am removing the paramilitary rhetoric from my consideration. That rhetoric is the main problem with this document, in my opinion. You cannot have a paramilitary state within a q & a format.

    Here we go:

    -------------

    Bill of rights:


    **AMENDMENT 1 (DISCOVERED TO BE VOID AND FRUITLESS)

    Users below 5 may not ask questions because users below that level don't generally know how to formulate questions properly.

    -------this would have driven away newcomers who could have provided decent input. Newness does not mean idiocy or vapidity.


    **AMENDMENT 2

    Trolls will be considered sub-humans and will be prosecuted from the full extend of the senior members opinion.

    -----agreed and I wish that could be implemented.

    **AMENDMENT 3

    Users shall check the archives against any possible questions they may fathom to ask.

    -------agreed to a point. The problem is is that this is very weighty and cumbersome. Also, some of these questions have SO many pages of answers as to render just reviving them to be useless. Also, if the question has not been asked recently then it really does have validity to being asked again. I am not talking about vapid questions... I am talking about the weightier ones.

    Again, I have trouble with the word "shall" because nobody can command another person to do anything.


    **AMENDMENT 4 (The Anderson construct)

    All users will use spelling and grammar to the best of their ability in place of any "sub-par language".

    -------disagreed. Now, I do not like reading chatspeak or leet (or whatever it is called) but I do not mind someone who has a problem with the language but who is trying. I stand by my comments on that in my original answer: http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/1244338 . It is at the end of this sucker so, well, scroll.

    **AMENDMENT 5 (REPEALED)

    All members must manditorily join the anti-troll squad, any user found outside the group is considered a heretic and a troll.
    http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/94065

    ------ agree with the repealing, disagreed with the original stipulation. Nobody should be asked as a stipulation of being in compliance with this document to join any other group.


    **AMENDMENT 6 (LMD Article)

    Any negative rating given must be accompanied by a comment why such rating was given.

    -----agreed. And I usually follow this and, yes, I violated this precept when I negged your amendment post. I do owe you an apology for not commenting. I actually thought I did but I went back and looked... I had not.


    **AMENDMENT 7 (LMD Article)

    No religion (or lack thereof) shall be riddiculed.

    -----agreed, and I would add "race", "sexual orientation", etc. to that list.


    **AMENDMENT 8 (BAM Construct)

    Each new user is allowed three "moron" questions.

    Examples:
    (wat do you know of my idol jonny depp heart heart heart)
    (What does your mom look like)

    Guide: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/112069

    ----- as far as the first example you describe, agreed that it is annoying. The second is not annoying to me. However, nobody has the right to say what another person can ask. Questions like this do not get great response. The asker is going to learn, from reaction of the board, that this is not wished.

    I do not like the fluff questions myself but they have every right to ask them.



    **AMENDMENT 9 (BAM Construct)

    All questions must have a question mark. (?)

    -----agreed that it is grammatically correct, disagreed in insisting upon it.


    **AMENDMENT 10 (BAM Construct)

    Direct sources from other media outlets (sites, books, etc.) Must be credited.

    ---agreed that they SHOULD be cited when used, disagreed that they MUST.


    **AMENDMENT 11 (The melissa clause)

    Names and/or e-mails should not be placed in a question.

    ----agreed, with some exceptions. Sometimes members are congratulated for various things. Agreed stronly that questions asked to attack users by name should not be allowed. AB DOES delete those quickly.


    **AMENDMENT 12 (Inquisition clause)

    Answers and/or questions should not be typed in all capital letters.

    ----agreed that this is annoying.


    **AMENDMENT 13 (Anti-hole clause)

    Qustions that seek confirmation of an opinion will no be tolerated.

    I.E. "Does anyone agree that My Chemical Romance ROCKS!!!!!!"

    ----- agreed that this is annoying, disagreed that this will "not be tolerated". This is a good suggestion but insistence is not within yours, or my, rights.


    **AMENDMENT 14 (Pottle Defense)

    Inferences of random opinion should be excluded from questions.

    I.E. "Is there any truth to the rumor that Vin Desiel is gay? Cause I have a hard time believing it. He is too hot for that!"

    ----- Agreed that it is annoying.


    **AMENDMENT 15 (The Mathers institute)

    All users must supply their own avatar or use one provided by answerbag.
    Any stealing of avatars is prohibited and warants downration until a change is made.

    ------AGREED 100%.


    **AMENDMENT 16 (The Landlord's rage)

    Comments to the answerers of the asker's question go in the comment area below each answer, not in a new answer.

    ----this is often a glitch or an error. Some newcomers have not gotten their confirmation email and others, like me, sometimes f*ck up.


    **AMENDMENT 17 (Yahoo Treason Clause)

    Having a Yahoo Answers account and an account on Answerbag is playing double agent and considered treason.

    ------Disagreed. There is no rivalry between AB and Y!A... at least as far as the membership is concerned. Now I HATE Yahoo answers but it is not playing favorites to be on both. Everyone has the right to post wherever they wish.


    **AMENDMENT 18 (The deaddrunk sobriety clause)

    Large masses of text that do not address the question or support the answer detract from the answer itsself, making it subject to downration.

    -----I cannot agree nor disagree about this. I have seen it done but also, if you read those long answers, often there IS cause for the text. Also, in the answerer's mind, that text might be needed for explanation.


    **AMENDMENT 19 (pasobrian pacifist clause)

    Arguments to the point of insults are pointless and frowned upon, such things are qualified to be downrated.

    ------- agreed! And, yes, I usually do this and, yes, I did not follow my own advice. I do not apologize for what was said, but I apologize for popping my cork.


    **((AMENDMENT 20 (pasobrian pacifist clause)

    Multiple accounts are forgiven as long as only one is in constant use and one is not used to give points to the other.

    -----Agreed but I do not know how this can be determined. I guess that is a big "who know" to me.


    **AMENDMENT 21 (pasobrian pacifist clause)

    Trolls may only be downrated for acts of trollery, not from prior knowledge of trollery.

    ----Agreed.


    **AMENDMENT 22 (Gracin's revenge)

    Users may not beg for points in answers, questions or comments. Such action subjects the user's contribution to downration.

    ---- I find this annoying as H*ll but I would not say "may not". That is where this document and I come into conflict.


    **AMENDMENT 23 (Edict of Gracin and pasobrio)

    Answers to PG 13 questions may not deviate to a level of inappropriateness.

    EXAMPLE:

    What was your most treasured memory?

    this time i was with this hot #@$# and she took my !@%^#$^ in her @$%@$%@# behind a 7-11 and then all my buddies put their @%@%&^$^ in her @#%@#Y& then she took a @^&*%@ on my chest and then.....

    -----agreed. I do not like the thought of the young on this site being subjected to this. Again, I disagree with the use of the phrase "may not". It should be implemented and I wish it could be but nobody can stop another from posting. Instead, report the daylights out of those.


    ------------------

    Here is my opinion, summed up:

    This cannot be enforced and is off-putting with the rhetoric of "may not", "must not", and the like.

    It has many good suggestions but that is what they are... suggestions.

    It has many that would put a stranglehold on newcomers. I disagree with that. It is better to guide someone with a gentle hand than smack them with a police baton upside the head.

    • Like
    • Report

    10 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by I love my baby on August 21st, 2007

    I love my baby

    Idiots (foolish and stupid) have rights too.

    • Like
    • Report

    19 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by buzz123456 on May 5th, 2007

    buzz123456

    You want to form this constitution because this is a wonderful, insightful site but you go by cyberscrewed.tk and have a link to suddendeath.tk which claims to be the place where the most pointless things are discussed, where fu*k is every second word and everyone hates America, ah kinda contradicting is it not?

    • Like
    • Report

    6 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by christine alyssa on August 21st, 2007

    christine alyssa

    How is stupidity so far from retardation? Just a simple question? It's still degrading and hurtful to whoever is on the receiving end of it.

    • Like
    • Report

    9 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by another other on August 20th, 2007

    another other

    I'm no hatemonger. I was recently on a forum that had such nazi-like policies. A moderator goaded me into an argument by saying rude, presumptuous things about me (I was just asking a question about a city) and when I responded saying his behavior was unappreciated (no use of swear words) he (because he had the authority of moderator) deleted my post and claimed that I had made a 'personal attack' against him. After reading the TOS, I came up with quite a few violations that he had made as well, but I had no authority. That site was whack, policing every statement that was made on there and sole discretion was given to moderators who apparently had only been on there a few months themselves. I don't think we want AB to turn out like that.

    • Like
    • Report

    5 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by N_T_P sleeps with fishes on May 6th, 2007

    N_T_P sleeps with fishes

    all negative ratings should be backed up with a comment !!!!!

    • Like
    • Report

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Kevisaurus is a Carnotaurus today on May 5th, 2007

    Kevisaurus is a Carnotaurus today

    There is a new category to flag questions:
    Unoriginal or Similar
    This will help to weed out questions that would have slipped through the cracks before because they were not duplicates or nonsense.
    Stupid questions do not belong.
    A good crazy thought type question belongs if it is original and well thought out.

    • Like
    • Report

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Spyder on May 5th, 2007

    Spyder

    "AMENDMENT 4 (The Anderson construct)

    All users will use spelling and grammar to the best of their ability in place of any "sub-par language"."

    lol... you're banned, Bam.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by Roger Kovaciny on May 26th, 2007

    Roger Kovaciny

    This is an idea, not for the constitution, but it would make AB more popular. I have nothing to add in categories like computers, electronics, sports & recreation and a few others, and am not interested in seeing questions. Could AB be programmed so you could reject entire categories of questions? Almost everyone would be able to read questions that interest them at least 25% faster.

    • Like
    • Report

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by buzz123456 on May 5th, 2007

    buzz123456

    You forgot to shut down the link in your About me

    • Like
    • Report

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Esteban-- Smart ass Pumpkin on May 5th, 2007

    Esteban-- Smart ass Pumpkin

    i want a too many words does not make a better answer ammendment. Brevity people. Be succinct.

    • Like
    • Report

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Just another bagger on August 21st, 2007

    Just another bagger

    NOOOO!

    Were told what to do all day at school and work, then when we get home, told what to do by parents and wives, AnswerBag is the one place we can escape! Dont do it!

    • Like
    • Report

    17 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by duchovney on May 5th, 2007

    duchovney

    well i am an idiot dont do it

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by the general on May 5th, 2007

    the general

    it sounds like a great idea,why not have a panel of twelve answerbaggers,picked by election,to sit as a kind of jury.if the majority of this jury decides that certain questions are unworthy of answerbag,then they go to that great cybershredder in the sky.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

You're reading We are forming the answerbag constitution to govern all users and minimise idiocy, what would you like to add?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

What does te bisterdon tumare anava mean
I can see the pain in your eyes