The Rules Rehash Thread

[FrithRae]

See I told you I was working on something...

Believe it or not *gasp* I posted a similar suggestion to this not 12 hours before Arse came on as "Admin" to announce the change - she can verify as she told me to go ahead and suggest my suggestion I posted in the Sheriff's office.

Now this post will be LONG ASS but please I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO REPEAT THIS SHIT..

So read it all . Please - I'm going to first discuss the current rules, then I'm going to discuss why I think the Sheriff's office needs to stay, and then I'm going to bring up my new suggestion for a new basic rule (along with a discussion of TOnic's suggestion of no thread hijacking...)


First off - the rules we presently have. They are there for a reason. I saw some of you thinking the whole "can't bash those who aren't here to defend themselves" is a stupid rule.

And you know what maybe it is - but apparenlty people are stupid.

How quickly so many of you forget WHY that rule had to be put into place. Now I don't know the details and unfortunately I think those who DO know the details now cease to come to this board. But I DO believe that at one point this boared was threatened with closure and Alge was threatened with Slander/libel/lawsuit due to comments being made about people who are not here.

As it stands- I thinik the rule should stay. As I don't feel Arse wants to be held responsible for a lawsuit anymore than Alge did - and we operate under the rules of the Main SITE this forum is attached to.

All the rule states is that if you want to call someone out let them know - if they refuse to come defend themselves then I believe you are in the clear still to insult them (if I'm reading that right). And don't bash banned people as they can't come back to defend themselves.

That rule was not in place until Alge got, I believe, a very formal little email from the owners of this "site" the forum works under and a threat of lawsuit.

Ok TWO - Sheriff's Office

I personally DO think there needs to be a place the mods can go and post to one another (and you guys would really be surprised how little posts go there I swear...). Because PMs aren't sent to multiple reciepients - its very hard to have a 3 or 4 or 5 way discussion Via PMs. Its very easy to have that, obviously, via a forum.

There ARE things I feel mods should discuss in private and not just "out in the open for everyone".

For example if they are simply saying "Hey everyone watch this thread it might get nasty" or "Hey this post struck me the wrong way but how do you see it" or "You know forum member XYZ came to me with a private concern that forum member ABC is harrassing them and wants to know our views on what we're reading".

These things do not need to be public. For one - even mentioning a forum was under watch someone might take as a threat or as action by the mods - even if no action was ever taken. If someone knows that post ABC is being "considered" by some mods as maybe crossing a line - then its not a discussion anymore by people who are SUPPOSE to be **OBJECTIVE**, but every one of you is going to feel you need to post your opinon on that "post" in question, or the poster themselves is going to get all up in arms offended.

Objective rulings need to be called down sometimes (or should be being called down) and that just doesnt function very well if everything is just "out in the open".

I can certanily see posters going off just at the mere MENTION that their post was being Looked at a bit closer or something like that.

I really dont thiknk that's a headache anyone here wants to read. Whereas if its between the mods and the mods decide that its nothing, then everyone goes about their merry way and noone gets all upset over literally - nothing happening.

The third example should certanily be kept in a private discussion and concerns noone else but the mods and the parties involved. If you open up for everyoen to be able to read their concerns then pepole won't come forward in the hopes of being viewed objectively.

So that's my vote - Sheriff office stays for mods. Every forum everyWHERE has a place for mods to communicate privately about common concerns so that there is a differnce held between "mod" duties and "personal" posts.

And sometimes Mods need a place to let off some steam but don't want to offend anyone in the general populace because its not about them its about mods being frustrated as being mods - and nothing else.

If they posted that as part of the genearl forum, it would be perceived as somemthing entirely different. Dont' even pretend it woudlnt' be, I think we've already seen how some of us can get.... (and more on that in the next part).

Ok - new suggestion I had already thought up but really is another rehash of an old discussion we had.

SO THREE!! - New Suggestion:

I remember back when we all voted on these rules, and had this discusion before the current rules ccame into place.

There was a discussion as to wether or not to make the "Religion/Politics" forum a bit more "restrictive" as far as personal attacks and flaming.

At the time that particular subset rule for that one forum was shot down - and the logic you pretty much were all using was that "hey we can keep our cool and police ourselves....let's not have to make that rule"

Well perhaps we can't police ourselves as well as we thougth we should.

So I'm opening up that for rediscussion again.

What I propose is that ONLY in the Religion/Political thread - that personal attacks and flames not be allowed.

I would propose that should a thread start to go that direction, the mod of course steps in and makes a warning post - both to EVERYONE involved to remind them not to let it degenerate into a personal thing. Also if it is one particular poster who has stepped a bit too far over that line, the mod can then either delete out of the post the personal rant attack (and PM the poster), or make a POST saying that the above will not be allowed and call on the poster to change it (and send a pm).

Basically I'm calling for a bit more "modding" responsiblity in that ONE forum to keep things more "civil" in discussions. Those are the discussions that tend to cause the most issues, so perhaps they are ones that should be by rule - watched more closely and kept "not ranting style"

For example in the recent "America Evil" thread I *almost* made the 2nd post warning that the topic could very well get out of hand fast and if it did I would immediately be locking it. But I didn't make that post, thinking it was not my job to prewarn and I had no basis as a mod for doing so other than my own personal "foresight" into the buttons such a topic could press.

I see now perhaps I should have made that post - but if we inserted a new rule for the religion/politics forum then I would be definitely given permission by you, the forum members, for making such comments as a mod.

Anyway discuss - we will call up a vote in a weeks time or something to decide this officially .


FOUR!!
OK subtopic - tonic I belive's suggestion - to not allow Off Topic Posts to remain in same thread (I belive that was the gist of the suggestion)

The discussion I see here is two fold.

1- to not allow off topic posts anywhere - that when off topic posts are made that the mod either delets post and sends PM to person to make another thread - OR the mod takes the post out of the thread and ...uhh..makes a seperate thread?

2 - to not allow off topic posts on the Religion/Political debate forum *only* - and take whatever action you guys discuss here as being apropriate

The problem I see with Solution One is that we got off topic posts all over these boards and everyone has a good time with them - generally. Sometimes even a serious thread getting a bit too serious is disolved by a silly "off topic" comment post or just a "Silly post" and everyone has some more sarcastic/silly comments and its all OK. In fact its part of the push/pull of this place and generally it seems that off topic posts aren't necessarily entirely "Unwelcome" in almost all the threads.

On the whole, people seem tohave a good time with them, and the thread gets directed back if its important - or talks about two subjects or whatever..usually fine.

NOW solution two may be more appropriate and fit into just being "Special Rules for the Religion/Politics" thread. Simply because we all acknolwedge that those debates are special situations in which the forum MEMBERS have decided to "forstall" the normal rules of a "rant" forum in the interest of - playing nice or not pissing too many off.

So I could certanily see how in that *one* forum we decide not only no personal attacks are allowed - but also if things get too off topic than action will be taken by Mod (what action is up to you guys).

As to the suggestion of a "Calling Out" forum - not sure why we have to divide things under categories so much around here . I mean if people need to call smeone out they look like they're doing a darn good job of it already.

But if you guys want another "Category" for a "Free for all bash fest on each other" to have a forum to call someone just on their personal shit - then by all means put it in place.

(however I would still insist in the interest of not being sued, no bashing by name people who aren't here to defend themselves....)

I feel ALLL these topics should be discussed and then put under a vote in say a week or 10 days - as you guys determine by how much this is debated.

And just realize that if you get rid of the sheriff's office, it does limit how well mods can get together and agree to do their jobs - Mods are counterchecks to other mods as well as to forum memebers. Its just something I feel strongly about that should stay.

The rest is all up to you guys - I shall implement my duty in the way you all feel comfortable with.

DEBATE ON!

(see...mm...15 minutes later..I told you I was working on it)

Frith-Rae

[paladin]

As I said before, the no bashing of non members rules is the stupidest thing ever, and the only reason it was in place was

1) a jab at myself for picking on outside people by cath

2) Alge got scared of some asshole named destroy

The rule as no merit, and the lawsuit claim has no back bone.



About Hijacking, I say let the thread starter decide. sometimes threads evolve, and thats a good thing, so if the OP has a problem with it, we should all respect that.

and thats about it for now.

Oh and about the SO, I don't care one way or the other to be honest, but I don't really think it is needed, everything that is said there can be said via PM's. Without it, it would give our little community a better sense of involvement with whatever goes on, good or bad. Handle it out in the open with opinions form everyone.

[FrithRae]

paladin said:

As I said before, the no bashing of non members rules is the stupidest thing ever, and the only reason it was in place was

1) a jab at myself for picking on outside people by cath

2) Alge got scared of some asshole named destroy

The rule as no merit, and the lawsuit claim has no back bone.

Then I guess you've forgotten the bashing that went across Tazoon Vs. RR for awhile there- where pepole at Tazoon were getting very pissed that they were being talked about behind their backs unknown to them. It was really creating a bad community vibe (it wasn't about you and cath....and not even just destroy - I remember SEVERAL others involved) which wasnt' I belive what we were going for here.

And I still don't think its what we're going for here. But that's the reason for the voting later .

About Hijacking, I say let the thread starter decide. sometimes threads evolve, and thats a good thing, so if the OP has a problem with it, we should all respect that.

So to be clear, are you suggesting that the mods only do something about the thread hijack if they are instructed to by the original poster (I guess either by the poster posting for them to remove it, or via PM?)

Oh and about the SO, I don't care one way or the other to be honest, but I don't really think it is needed, everything that is said there can be said via PM's. Without it, it would give our little community a better sense of involvement with whatever goes on, good or bad. Handle it out in the open with opinions form everyone.

Well we handled the latest thing out in the open with opinions from "everyone" and I"M not sure everyone is satsified with how that worked out .

And again - please reread my point about using PMs for a multiple - person discussion.

Frith

[tonic]

paladin said:

As I said before, the no bashing of non members rules is the stupidest thing ever, and the only reason it was in place was

1) a jab at myself for picking on outside people by cath

2) Alge got scared of some asshole named destroy

The rule as no merit, and the lawsuit claim has no back bone.



About Hijacking, I say let the thread starter decide. sometimes threads evolve, and thats a good thing, so if the OP has a problem with it, we should all respect that.

and thats about it for now.

Oh and about the SO, I don't care one way or the other to be honest, but I don't really think it is needed, everything that is said there can be said via PM's. Without it, it would give our little community a better sense of involvement with whatever goes on, good or bad. Handle it out in the open with opinions form everyone.

I agree the above rule applied to the situation with algie and has no real merit. I mean really will peaches grab her god damn lawyer cause i said she was overly sweet?

SO i could give a flying fuk about.

As for a squabble thread again the suggestion was out there to help relieve upsets that might be created. I just want ppl to let it out and vent if they feel they were hurt in some way. As long as we can deal with this possible issue i dont care how its done.

[rexxlaww]

What Frithy is proposing isnt a massive change to the rules. Right now, thats a good thing.

Before I left as Mod the first time, there was talk to open a category for people to go and work out their issues. We should re-explore that, with a possible caveat that when they start the tread, they ask one of the mods to set permissions based on their preference.

Open to all.
Only those invited.
Only those involved.

Just my new 2 cents worth.

[paladin]

Frith the no bashing outsiders rule was born out of Cath's dislike for me bashing people at Taz. Thats how it all started and it just turned into something else later.

I always felt that if you have something to say, say it. But it is up to the new rules and Admin to decide, I will follow what is written.

And yes, I think a mod should step in when the OP has a problem. For example, most of my threads I could care less about if they go of track, but lets say I make a post about parenting and want to keep it on topic and civil. If someone Hijacks it, it would be my responsibility to first ask the person to take it to another thread and not to Hijack, if that fails, then I get mod assistance to get the thread back on track.

As far as the SO, like I said either way is fine by me, but some folks think that the mods are talking behind their backs and tend to look at it in a negative light.

But really I could care less.

[Nali]

Sherriff's Office

I admin for two boards, and moderate for another. In every board, we have some sort of board for officers, moderators, or whatever. Usually they don't get used much, but the reasons Frith pointed out were exactly right. If there's a concern, when you have an admin and multiple moderators, it'd be silly to try to solve it via PMs, because you want the staff's discussion on it. I don't see why it needs to be done away with.

Personal insults/flames

Why should the no personal insults/flames be limited to the 3R board? Really, I don't care to see anyone bringing up personal crap about someone else, or insulting someone else personally (unless both know it is jokingly). If a couple people have problems with each other, rather than having a drawn out argument on the board, forcing some members to choose sides, why can't they just be adults and either ignore each other or hash it out in PMs?

Off-topicness

The only place I can really see this being a problem is in the 3Rs and maybe Other Rants. With the kind of debates we have here, it can be frustrating to come back after a day or so, check in on a thread you were interested in, only to see that there's some stuff you would have wanted to respond to, only the topic has completely changed. And of course, there is some stuff that ends up in those threads that is just inappropriate to the topic.

Bashing non-members

I gives not a fuck. I don't care what goes on on the Horizons boards, I have moved on from that game. BUT, if I want to talk about idiot 15 year olds from other forums that are completely non-Horizons or maybe even non-WoW related, does that mean I need to let them know? When they aren't even aware this place exists?

Anyway, those are my 2cp on the aforementioned topics.

[FrithRae]

they ask one of the mods to set permissions based on their preference.

Open to all.
Only those invited.
Only those involved.

Can you do that per thread? Or is that only per forum?

As in if say Pally and me called each other out *smooches* as the first thread, and the forum was then open to Pally and me - we hash it out whatever.

But then if a month later Tonic and Nali go at it and then they ONLY get access to the forum, well they can read about me and pally's problems.

Or are you saying we can do it on a thread by thread basis (locking to only certain people?)

Or maybe I'm really just missing it all .

I always felt that if you have something to say, say it. But it is up to the new rules and Admin to decide, I will follow what is written.

Actually that will be part of what is up for a "new vote". So if majority votes to throw it out - it shall be thrown out. At least that's what I was thinking how it would go...

edit: simultanous posting wee!

If a couple people have problems with each other, rather than having a drawn out argument on the board, forcing some members to choose sides, why can't they just be adults and either ignore each other or hash it out in PMs?

You know that's a very good question. But humans suck. And so for whatever reason, its obvious that this tactic in the past hasn't worked. Both in this forum and in RL. IF ONLY people weren't so stupid sometimes .

(and this will allll be up for part of the vote unless the point seems moot if everyone is agreeing here...heheh)

ok patient comign soon..so I won't be back to post until later tonight...

Frith-Rae

[Darkwater]

Thread hijacking should be fine as long as the OP is fine with it. If the OP has issues with a thread of his/her's being hijacked, then just have them PM a mod and take action that way. That goes for posts in any forum I think. I don't think that mods should pick and choose hijacked threads at random to interfer with (deleting posts, moving posts into new threads, ect) unless they have the permission of the OP.

Don't care about the SO.

While I don't like personal attacks, I'm also not all that interested in having threads locked either. Removing offensive material that is personal to someone, may be a less intrusive solution, and still allow a heated discussion to continue.

That said, however, there have been remarkably few incidents since this forum came to life that tempers have flared so much as they have now. Also, I might say that most of them occured outside the 3R forum. The last one before this (Cath vs pally ect), occured in the PnP and Other rants forum. The Destroy thing was in the game's forum. So while, yes the 3R forum is prone to see more heate debates, I think the regular posters on that forum have done remarkably well at keeping things civil.

[tantalyr]

1) I was around when Destroy was banned and though I was not actually involved in Alg's decision to ban him, I am quite confident it had nothing to do with bashing folks on other boards. Rather, Destroy posted one night that he intended to "bomb" the then-new Community Boards to bring them down for a time. Dangit learned of Destroy's plan and I'm sure he wasn't amused. Alg had previously warned Destroy on other occasions about breaking what few rules RR had, not that Destroy gave two hoots. And this time he just went over the line.

2) I agree with the present rule prohibiting bashing of folks on other boards without giving them notice that they're being called out, and giving them the opportunity to respond. Frankly, in my view it's just plain cowardly to bash someone who cannot (or do not know to) defend themselves. I've bashed other board posters--and indeed a moderator--from another board here, but I always made sure they were either already members of RR, too, or alerted them via PM on the other board that I was calling them out. I say keep that rule intact.

3) I agree with Frith that the Sheriff's Office should remain, as there are indeed a multitude of issues that can arise which, if discussed openly among all members, would result in unwarranted embarrassment to one or more members. Let the mods sort out such issues privately.

4) I agree with Paladin that thread hijacking should be called by the thread-starter, not the mods. If the thread-starter doesn't have a problem with the direction the thread is going, then neither should anyone else. BUT . . . if the thread-starter believes the thread is being hijacked to his/her dislike, then the thread-starter need only PM one of the mods who, in turn, should delete the hijacking post and all posts responding to it in order to get the thread back on track.

5) I disagree with any modding of anything one or more mods may find vitriolic or personally insulting in ANY of the forums, not just the one involving politics/religion.

First off, as someone else recently and aptly stated here: "If you can't stand the heat, don't go into the kitchen in the first place." It's not like members are going to be caught off-guard in reading a thread entitled "America is Evil Because . . . ." or "WoW Sucks Donkey Dicks." You KNOW that the thread is sure to engender flames. Now whether you flame or not, if you participate in that discussion you know darned good and well to don your asbestos suit. And if you just hate flames, then for God's sake don't read, much less participate, in that thread.

Second, last time I checked we're all adults here. And we've all got freedom of choice to read or not read, to participate or to ignore, any discussion or even a post or two within that discussion.

Third, RR was started for the express purpose of allowing all members to freely express their opinions without harsh moderator oversight. I do not want to watch over my shoulder every time I post something. It's why I'm a member here.

Fourth, insults and flames are in the eye of the beholder. One man's flame is another man's free expression of heartfelt ideas. There's no better proof of that than the thread that started all this. The thread-starter, Darkwater, has posted here that he did not take offense to the responses. A couple of other folks obviously did.

That said, it is nevertheless obvious that some moderation will be necessary from time to time. Plainly, you can't let slide posts that threaten actual physical (or computer) harm to other posters (or boards for that matter). You can't turn a blind eye to some schmuck who posts another member's personal information, no matter how it was derived (e.g. "Hey folks, Frithy's real name is Berta Hornswoggle and her Social Security Number is XXX-XX-XXX"). But I really think those will be rare, if not entirely non-existent, posts here.

Just my $0.02.

And they really need to add a cent sign to the keyboard . . . .

[akuma]

I am not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be but from the way I read the law the operators of a board cannot be held liable for post made on a board under US law. I do realize that british, Australian, Canadian laws may be different and allow for such actions however here is a link on netigation and AOL

www.netlitigation.com/netlitigation/cases/zeran.htm

heres the relevent part for those who do not want to read the entire thing

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the lower court’s dismissal of the case on the ground that § 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ("the CDA"), which addresses issues concerning protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material, confers immunity on Internet providers with respect to information placed on their services by third parties and specifically provides that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." The court thus held that § 230 creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service.

Quite frankly an official email can be typed up by anyone, and people do love to threaten litigation. However 90% of what people may want to percieve as libel will never make it past the "I am gonna sue your ass" stage. Just my 2 cents worth here.

However look at how many times around the internet the phrase David Bowman sucks, was typed in various ways. How many times did David Allen accuse him of 'stealing' the company? How many times have you seen SOE sucks/WoW sucks/Raph Koster ruined SWG etc etc etc. To me those are a lot more defamatory than me saying Darkwater sucks, whether he is here to defend himself or not.

I figure only 3 rules are needed as I stated in the other thread

1. don't be stupid
2. moderators decide what is stupid
3. if you have a problem with a moderators decision then fuck off

[tonic]

tant said:

5) I disagree with any modding of anything one or more mods may find vitriolic or personally insulting in ANY of the forums, not just the one involving politics/religion.

First off, as someone else recently and aptly stated here: "If you can't stand the heat, don't go into the kitchen in the first place." It's not like members are going to be caught off-guard in reading a thread entitled "America is Evil Because . . . ." or "WoW Sucks Donkey Dicks." You KNOW that the thread is sure to engender flames. Now whether you flame or not, if you participate in that discussion you know darned good and well to don your asbestos suit. And if you just hate flames, then for God's sake don't read, much less participate, in that thread.

Second, last time I checked we're all adults here. And we've all got freedom of choice to read or not read, to participate or to ignore, any discussion or even a post or two within that discussion.

Ok but what if-- as we just saw some asshat from the wood pile decides to take out their PMS on the board (caths post). What does that fall under? Isnt that being caught off guard? Should members be protected in some way from such incidents? Im not saying i cant handle it but as we have seen we have lost a few ppl over insults and mud slinging and the "chickenshit" post is a prime example of the behavior that says some type of moding is needed. Can we have some offical way to handle just plain nasty attacking threads? Thats what im saying.

[Darkwater]

Well, at most, make a mudslinging board, and move all such threads to there.

Besides that, however, can't you just choose to not read or respond to it? I mean, if you are watching a TV show that really sucks, do you really choose to make yourself sit through it, or do you flip to another channel. Self control, and self responsibility.

[tonic]

darkwater said:

Well, at most, make a mudslinging board, and move all such threads to there.

Besides that, however, can't you just choose to not read or respond to it? I mean, if you are watching a TV show that really sucks, do you really choose to make yourself sit through it, or do you flip to another channel. Self control, and self responsibility.

I like the mudsling section idea. Alot of times i dont have a clue by the title of the thread what im clicking on. Somedays i dont feel like hearing someones woah woah whining thread about a fellow poster. This would help.

[tonic]

Overall let me say...whatever is decided is cool by me. I just really hate it when ppl leave over a upset and was hoping to find ways to avoid it. Seriously it upsets me to see such anger out the door. Cath i wish it was different and that you would chill out and join us again but i dont see that happening. Anyone else for that matter that left in a tizzy i hope you can chill and come back later on. We are all here to talk and debate ...yea our teeth are alittle sharp at times but hell thats what makes us so charming.