oh hey look the moderator who never posts in public is going to weigh in I bet you kids love that!
Anyways: the first idea (an automated "hey here is how to report rule violators" message is a very good idea and I think it could be implemented, maybe? I do absolutely none of the technical side work for gd so I cannot actually say--but I have seen similar things on other sites and depp is as fine a site architect as any, so. Yeah.
I am violently opposed and will fight to the death any idea of shame walls and/or guardians for a number of reasons. The main one, however, is this: getdare has a policy of not endorsing, condoning, or condemning content which is within the already established site rules.
If they are breaking the rules, report them--and they will likely be banned if the offense is serious or repeated.
If somebody is doing something that is considered "unhealthy" in the s/m community or "unsafe" but is not breaking any site rules (note, age requirements are a site rule)? There is no reason to put them on a "wall of shame" because certain users feel that they are unhealthy/unsafe. Getdare has a long established policy of NOT condoning/condemning content which fits within the parameters of the site rules. We (as a site, that is. individual users are welcome and encouraged to give opinions all the time) do not tell you what is or is not good or bad to try. Users are expected to rely on their own judgment and preferences. And, note, a great deal of what the s/m segment of the site considers "safe" or "psychologically healthy" IS largely a matter of preference. The parts of it that are not preference are codified in law/site rules (e.g., age requirements).
To make this shorter: I don't want a wall of shame because we don't tell users what they should or should not do or like or want or not want so long as it is within the site rules.
If it isn't within the site rules? The user needs to be banned or infracted (which is a step on the raod to ban-hood).
I dislike the "guardian" idea for a similar reason: it gives the appearance of official site approval to highly subjective content. Just because a user is well-liked and popular and is considered to have good ideas DOES NOT mean that the site should put a stamp of endorsement on their subjective opinions. Again: we aren't (rightly so, in my opinion) in the business of endorsing things as good or bad or desirable so long as they are within the rules.
There is also the issue of petty drama. Simply put, I don't want to create tools--whether it be a wall or guardians--which can be used by users to further petty drama. And yes, there is tons of petty drama all the time. And yes, people use every feature of the site to take advantage of it. And yes, even good and active and popular and well-liked users who might be a candidate for guardian engage in petty drama.
This is, for the record, why numerical repute is a dead and ancient thing.
So in short: I dont want a wall or guardians because that would require getdare to endorse subjective rule-abiding content. We don't need those things for the non-rule abiders; we just need people to report them so we can infract and ban them.
ever wondered what some of the older users mean when they talk about the libertarian model of getdare? well, the above sentiments: the idea of a base ground-line of rules within which users are expected to exercise their own due diligence and responsible thinking rather than have the site actively police subjective content