A discussion on the rules.

bonkey

Hi all,

some time ago, myself, Gandalf and Swiss were discussing what we saw as the failings of our forum's rules. We - naturally - took this mostly from a moderator's stance.

Since then, I've promised the guys I'd draft up a new set of rules - something I've successfully managed not to do since well before Easter

So, what I'd like to do is give everyone a chance to have their say. What needs to be changed?

Please bear in mind the following :

This will never turn into a "letter of the law" rules system. If what you want is a list of banned words, or a list of insults you cant say, or anything like that then you will be disappointed.

What we would like to see is a set of rules that promote discussion/debate...not just a set of rules to keep the forum under control (for lack of a better term).

If people want to make a comment on this thread, but not have it publicly associated with them, then PM me the content, and I will post it on your behalf.

This discussion has no predetermined timescale. It will continue as long as we - the mods - feel it is of benefit.

So...there you have it. I'll sticky this thread for now....

jc

From re-reading it,to be honest, I wouldn't like to see , anything in the existing charter being done away with.
mm

Sparks

I'd like to see some mention of civility made explicit in the rules - specifically in using care in selecting language when making points around sensitive issues. (eg. not saying "**** happens" as a defence when discussing the death of a 10-year-old kid who gets shot by a US marine)

Victor

Proposal's:

That DeVore's name be spelt correctly in the guidelines.

That spell checker be used on the guidelines.

That polls be premoderated or that people who post unbalanced polls be smacked.

That the civility that should be extended to posters also be extended to others (no "Bertie is a ****er").

That threads stay relatively on topic (snippets of interesting information and side issues aside).

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Sparks
I'd like to see some mention of civility made explicit in the rules - specifically in using care in selecting language when making points around sensitive issues. (eg. not saying "**** happens" as a defence when discussing the death of a 10-year-old kid who gets shot by a US marine)

You want the mods to be PC thought-police? No thanks.

Victor

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
You want the mods to be PC thought-police? No thanks.

Thought-police no potty-mouth police maybe.

Sparks

Biffa, there is an exceptionally large difference between not being allowed to express a thought and being required to express it in civil language. Or do speeches in Congress normally sound like a bunch of longshoremen during happy hour?

Besides, insulting people without using foul language is considered an art form by many...

Originally posted by Sparks
Besides, insulting people without using foul language is considered an art form by many...

which, shouldn't be happening in a discussion, regardless of how well it's disguised.
Just thought I'd finish the sentence for you;)
mm

Sparks

Man,
Good completion, and agreed - I just wanted to point out that you don't actually need foul language for anything.
With the possible exception for expressing shock when you hit your thumb with the hammer!

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Biffa, there is an exceptionally large difference between not being allowed to express a thought and being required to express it in civil language. Or do speeches in Congress normally sound like a bunch of longshoremen during happy hour?

There is a case that foul language can be used to make a point. The example you cite would specifically relate to the death of innocents in war as just another part of life:

Stub your toe? - Shit happens.
Your mate lose their job and the bank about to repossess their home? - Shit happens.
10-year-old kid who gets shot by a US marine? - Shit happens.

It does, and the callous and indifferent nature in which this is put forward is part of the argument - as callous and indifferent as life is (which is the point, in case you missed it).

I would certainly agree that personal abuse should be moderated. But if some of the views expressed make you feel a bit squeamish, well... shit happens.

Sparks

TC,
You were able to make the point that life is callous without needing to use foul language, or being uncivil. "**** happens", however, is a phrase that implies that the speaker simply feels indifferent about the topic and is annoyed that you don't feel the same - a different matter alltogether.

Victor

Originally posted by The Corinthian
It does, and the callous and indifferent nature in which this is put forward is part of the argument - as callous and indifferent as life is (which is the point, in case you missed it).

I would certainly agree that personal abuse should be moderated. But if some of the views expressed make you feel a bit squeamish, well... shit happens.

It is one thing for these bad things to happen. However to accept them as OK or normal or even tacitly approve of them is another matter. "250,000 Bosnians killed .. s*** happens" or "3,000 New Yorkers killed .. s*** happens" is not acceptable behavior.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
You were able to make the point that life is callous without needing to use foul language, or being uncivil. "**** happens", however, is a phrase that implies that the speaker simply feels indifferent about the topic and is annoyed that you don't feel the same - a different matter alltogether.

Perhaps, but that’s arguable (I would not have read it that way).

Originally posted by Victor
It is one thing for these bad things to happen. However to accept them as OK or normal or even tacitly approve of them is another matter. "250,000 Bosnians killed .. s*** happens" or "3,000 New Yorkers killed .. s*** happens" is not acceptable behavior.

Oh dear, the Thought Police is out tonight...

Omnia Mortis - I’ve never had an issue with that, Victor. You do, and in that we disagree.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by bonkey
What we would like to see is a set of rules that promote discussion/debate...not just a set of rules to keep the forum under control (for lack of a better term).

I wasn't aware there was a problem with people being allowed to express their opinions on this board. From what I can see, nobody is being restricted from expressing their views so long as they don't make personal invective or use foul language. Since you kind of implied there was a problem in the board with people feeling they can't express themselves, perhaps you could expand on this?

I'd just like to ask how far this restriction goes? Are we to assume, for example, that people who write like an Oxford professor or broadsheet journalist are OK but those who write like Michael Moore are carefully watched, or vetted? People have different ways of getting their ideas across, with different levels of commitment and emotion.

I always think so long as civility between posters is maintained, and that the posters actually *say* something, however they write it, that that's OK. There's no need for bad language, but sometimes coarse descriptions can be effective and, indeed, important when making certain points. I don't think I've seen people chastised for vivid imagery, so that's fine. Mods may be worried that it can rub people up the wrong way, but that's the idea - the test is whether it's intended as a personal insult. If it's not, fine.

I do think people making arguments with lots of (x)'s and (y)'s is a bit silly, though.

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
Thought-police no potty-mouth police maybe.

I'd agree.

We dont want to police anyone's attitudes....simply the way that they choose to express them.

I have relatively consistently fought against the idea that anyone's belief is somehow "invalid" or even "incorrect". I will argue that it is based on inconsistent, incomplete, or incorrect assumptions/information, but at the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

What they're not entitled to is the freedom to express that opinion in whatever way they choose. Even thats not entirely accurate...posters are completely free to express their opinions whatever way they wish - as long as they accept the consequences of doing so.

In regards to the point which Sparks brought up (which harks back to a run-in and subsequent conversation the two of us had some time back), I will say this :

As a moderator, when it comes to these "grey areas" (i.e. the sh1t happens comment, or the STFU response), I look at not what the writer is attempting to express, but how it is possible/probable that their words will be interpreted. Written communication is so much more limited than verbal in this respect - we lose much of the impact that tone, pitch, facial expression, etc. can all convey. As a result, it is far easier to be taken up wrong.....and that ultimately is where the line has to be drawn.

Saying "Sh1t happens" is profane, but little different to "well, thats just life". Not necessarily a nice attitude, but a valid opinion.

On the other hand "STFU" can be read as "I cant believe you can accept that so blindly", or "you have no right to go saying these things because you're wrong". There's a subtle difference in these two meanings, and one of them I do not feel is acceptable.

If I could have faith that people would go "how can you say that to me? I'm terirbly insulted?, and that the response would be "I meant it to be taken in this way...." then I'd have no issue with it at all. (Although if people were willing to do that, then I would fail to see why they couldnt just be clearer at the outset...but thats just wishful thinking.)

The reality is that when someone uses emotive language, all too often, the "target" is far too willing to be offended, and its almost as though they're just waiting for an excuse to get involved in some verbal argy-bargy.

As moderators, we can deal with this proactively or retroactively. Proactive resolution allows to avoid the breakout of the fight, but does put some people's noses out of joint. Retroactive would possibly be fairer, but would also lead to "but he said the same thing here and didnt get slapped for it" complaints and so on.

Either way, the moderators end up making a judgement call, and some people's noses will be put out of joint by the calls we do and do not make.....so we tend to prefer the "escalation avoidance" approach, of stopping it before it really starts.

The more we know posters, the more we are likely to be able to judge how they react, and so often a quiet PM, or even doing nothing is enough as it just wont get out of hand. Conversely, the less we know a poster (i.e. the newer they are), the more likely we are to intervene to ensure that things dont get out of hand. Unfortunately, these are also the people most likely to be offended by the fact that we are not applying the rules equally, and will feel that its "pick on the newbie" clique-ism.

Thats what I see as the biggest failing of the rules we have in place - that they are actually toughest on the people we should be most welcoming to.

I'm more than willing to discuss and even try other approaches, which is the real idea behind this...I'd like to know how else we can approach the problem.

jc

p.s. Sparks....can you throw that link up that discusses "civility" that you sent me before. Its an excellent read, relevant to this discussion, and I've misplaced the link.

Éomer of Rohan

There is a very fine line here, I suppose, between thought police and dealing with trollers. Bonkey, I remember you sending myself and Sparks a PM one time dealing with a certain third member of this forum who you were only about to take steps to deal with - at the time I remember thinking that this was very charitable given that this poster had made unsubstantiated (and which I maintain, could not have been proven even by reasonable debate) accusations (in this case it was against the anti-war protestors) - and I would like therefore to see the rules crack down harder on trollers who come off with soundbyte one line answers (I recognise that the point made earlier about the whole Oxford Professor/Michael Moore contrast but I think that this particular type of trolling is not relevent to that); provocative posting using such one liners (and I will PM you a string of examples if you wish) should be a warning at the least.

swiss

Originally posted by bonkey:

The more we know posters, the more we are likely to be able to judge how they react, and so often a quiet PM, or even doing nothing is enough as it just wont get out of hand. Conversely, the less we know a poster (i.e. the newer they are), the more likely we are to intervene to ensure that things dont get out of hand. Unfortunately, these are also the people most likely to be offended by the fact that we are not applying the rules equally, and will feel that its "pick on the newbie" clique-ism.

As a moderator, I am quite conscious of this. Sometimes someone who is relatively new to the board will post something that may be deemed as not quite kosher by the rest of the community, and occasionally I may give that person the benefit of the doubt, insofar as I might not be as harsh in reprimanding that individual as I might another person on the board. I don't mean to give a false sense of double standards, the rules after all apply to everybody, including moderators and/or admins. However, the reason I give for this (seemingly) unwarranted leniency is due to the fact that the person may be unaware that a certain manner of posting is unacceptable. Oftentimes I find that a politely worded PM will yield better results than a public intervention by the perceived 'thought police'.

I also believe that we should try to have a more unified approach in relation to dealing with people who want to give out information about politically motivated events. I have no problem with people trying to disseminate information about certain events, however there is a fine line between doing this and simply promoting a certain event, no matter how relevant that event might be to a certain political process. What I believe we should have is a seperate section, perhaps a sticky thread, where people can post links to particular events that might be pertintent to politics, for example debates, rallies, protests etc. This would prevent mutiple threads being started about the same subject, and would also free up discussion about the events in question in other threads.

Fundraisers for political events are, IMO, not related to politics, and information about fundraisers have no place on the board. I believe that this should be explicitly stated in the charter.

Just my 2c.

Éomer of Rohan

Fundraisers for political events are, IMO, not related to politics, and information about fundraisers have no place on the board. I believe that this should be explicitly stated in the charter.

I think that even that anti-globalisation bus that was being pushed in three seperate threads not so long ago (even though I am dead set against the present embodiment of globalisation:D ) was pushing the definition of politics a little too far. Maybe you should suggest to De Vore that he set up an Irish events forum (North AND South) for people to post on; cultural, political or whatever.

Victor

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Omnia Mortis - I’ve never had an issue with that, Victor. You do, and in that we disagree.

Omnia Mortis - fear of death? I realise people die, even if it is hard for me to accept - too many people close to me have died recently. However, while it does them no real harm, there is usually no reason to insult them once they have died. Yes, I prefer the living to the dead, but such profanity is the thin edge of the desecration wedge.

Originally posted by bonkey
Saying "Sh1t happens" is profane, but little different to "well, thats just life". Not necessarily a nice attitude, but a valid opinion.

I'm not so worried about the vulgarity, but the truer profanity ("Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred") part of "Sh1t happens".

Originally posted by swiss
As a moderator, I am quite conscious of this. Sometimes someone who is relatively new to the board will post something that may be deemed as not quite kosher

Zionist imperialist pig !

Originally posted by swiss
Fundraisers for political events are, IMO, not related to politics, and information about fundraisers have no place on the board. I believe that this should be explicitly stated in the charter.

However, pure activism (as in "we are recruiting" or "we are running a campaign on X" please get involved) advertising should be allowed within sense, I think. No hijacking please.

GuanYin

I don't know how qualififed I am to comment on this but I'll throw in my two cents.

I think censoring colloquialisms would be an insult to the posters using the forum. After all, they are an everyday component of the english language, rightly or wrongly so. If its an Admin issue on site maintenance to do with certificate rating or something... fine.. but the mods shouldn't be there to dictate what areas of common language are acceptable.

I understand that perhaps a certain dignity is required on a board, but as Dadakopf stated, not all politicians are emotionaless oxford graduates. Michael Moores speeches and writing are as widely read (if not more widely) as any Ian Hislop article.

If there is to be an implimentation, why not give the thread starter the option of having language moderation on his/her thread?

Victor

Originally posted by sykeirl
I think censoring colloquialisms would be an insult to the posters using the forum.

The censor is boards-wide. A quick search for "censor" associated with "DeVore" will find the reasoning.

Sparks

Sykeirl,
The thing about a colloquial expression is that it's unacceptably informal. "**** happens" is deemed unacceptable in relation to some events (such as the death of a child) for a good reason - to allow it as acceptable cheapens life to a point that most of us deem to be unbearable in a civilised society.

But on an implementation note - "Yay!" to the foul language filter for the forums (and "Nay!" to the filter for PMs if that's possible).

Victor - do you mean the language filter or an actual censoring of colloqualisms?

GuanYin

Hmmm.... I think Gordons the only Mod I've ever actually communicated with so I'm probably missing some in-joke here....

..but anyway, by colloquialisms I meant stuff like "s**t happens"
and "WTF" as opposed to the use of actual swear words.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Victor
Omnia Mortis - fear of death?

Everything dies.

Sparks

sykeirl,
erm, you can't say "**** happens" or "what the ****" without using swear words.... as the language filter is demonstrating!

GuanYin

Originally posted by Sparks
sykeirl,
erm, you can't say "**** happens" or "what the ****" without using swear words.... as the language filter is demonstrating!

*sigh* what I meant was the difference between using an asterix and not (ie. Yes, have a language filter, but don't stop someone using the filtered version of the expression S**t Happens)

Victor

Originally posted by sykeirl
*sigh* what I meant was the difference between using an asterix and not (ie. Yes, have a language filter, but don't stop someone using the filtered version of the expression S**t Happens)

It's the sentiment that counts on politics, not the wording.

Telling someone to "STFU" (Shut the f*ck up) is unparliamentary language on Politics, "oh shite, I was wrong" isn't.

Likewise, saying "sh*t happens" when someone is killed, is callous and usually uncalled for, in society and on boards. To say "bad things happen to good people everyday and we need to take things in perspective" is much more acceptable (if bordering on the over-doing the soppy bit).

Originally posted by Sparks
sykeirl,
erm, you can't say "**** happens" or "what the ****" without using swear words.... as the language filter is demonstrating!

What we need here perhaps is a phrase filter:D
mental note: to vbulletin;idea for software update...(perhaps I could have a share of any profits on this one... )
mm

Sparks

One thing that strikes me is that there's a lot in the charters as to what posters may not post - but :
There is no set procedure for dealing with posters who violate site rules; and no policy that says that a moderator will remain neutral in a thread if posting as a moderator.

Originally posted by Sparks
One thing that strikes me is that there's a lot in the charters as to what posters may not post - but :
no policy that says that a moderator will remain neutral in a thread if posting as a moderator.

just as a comment on that,many posters on this forum might as is the case in many formal debates play devils advocate from time to time.
Moderators by their very nature , when they have the time read most threads( as opposed to topics they might be specifically interested in ) which may lead them to introduce arguments or points , or counter arguments , not otherwise brought into a debate.
Thats important to my mind and would be ruled out by having a Neutrality rule.

There is no set procedure for dealing with posters who violate site rules;

Is it not kind of understood that at a minimum a weeks ban is generally enforced for either serious individual enfractions or persistant ignoring of warnings?

mm

Sparks

Thats important to my mind and would be ruled out by having a Neutrality rule.

No it wouldn't be. Posting as devil's advocate is not the same as posting as a moderator.

Is it not kind of understood that at a minimum a weeks ban is generally enforced for either serious individual enfractions or persistant ignoring of warnings?

Yes, it is. That's the problem - it's "kind of understood", instead of a written procedure.

Originally posted by Sparks
posting as a moderator.

a moderator will remain neutral in a thread if posting as a moderator.

With respect to that then ( ) you would be ruling out some of the best arguments, that I've read on here in the last year or two for or against particular topics, and I wouldn't agree there.
By the phrase "if posting as a moderator" you reckon they should go under another nick to express opinions or to throw their weight in on one side or the other, that to my mind would be a bad rule.
To my mind theres no stigma attached to any reasonable opinion or approach to a discussion whether agreeable or otherwise.
And besides multiple registrations are frowned upon on the boards I think?
( Having said that it has often occurred to me that some posters on here may be using more than one nick, perhaps in an effort to stimulate or bring a discussion along in a certain way... or argue with themselves even! I'm wondering if that has ever been noticed, and action taken or does it matter provided no charter breaking occurs in the discussion? I might add at this point that I don't , nor do I have any intention of such activity. )
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
and no policy that says that a moderator will remain neutral in a thread if posting as a moderator.

Could you clarify what you mean by this, because I can see loads of different ways of interpreting this statement, and I'd much rather not try to second guess you about which one you meant.

jc

Sparks

Right, I should have made this clearer - when I say "posting as a moderator", I mean posting in that offical capacity - ie. posting warnings and so forth. Not posting their own opinions - the mods usually have well-thought-out opinions. It's a case of issuing warnings in a neutral manner and so on.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
It's a case of issuing warnings in a neutral manner and so on.

OK...I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I'm still not clear how a warning could be issued non-neutrally or neutrally.

Of course...maybe thats the problem

jc

Victor

I think this is what people are saying they don't want.

Let us say bonkey wants a new Irish flag of XYZ colours to get over historical baggage. MuppetProvo23 wants to keep the Irish flag because of it's historical links. bonkey bans MuppetProvo23.

Cork

My main problem is going a little off topic. It is always unintentional - but you tend to give examples or respond to somebody elses point.

It is very hard to keep keep rigidly to topics without vering off a little.

Éomer of Rohan

Right, c'mon let's use some of that material dialectic for which my kind are famed lol.

Victor wants to stop 'stupid people' and I have read that which he posted on the matter. What he classifies as stupid people, we might think of as those who lie or post unsubstantiated and unprovable material on the boards.

To come up with a solution for this, I would be greatful if the mods could post what are the degrees of penalty they can impose on a poster...

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
To come up with a solution for this, I would be greatful if the mods could post what are the degrees of penalty they can impose on a poster...

Well, there aren't that many degrees.

We can edit/delete posts, close threads, and ban people. Bannage is permanent unless we go back in and unban the person at a later stage.

Thats about it.

Personally, I think if so many people stopped getting indignant at other people's stupidity, and simply ignored them rather than posting long rants about how clueless a fscker you'd have to be to consistently come up with such garbage.....then it would be a lot less of a problem.

jc

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Personally, I think if so many people stopped getting indignant at other people's stupidity, and simply ignored them rather than posting long rants about how clueless a fscker you'd have to be to consistently come up with such garbage.....then it would be a lot less of a problem.

Qadhafi

Freedom of speech; if someone doesn’t give a toss if a kid got slated (I’m not saying I dont) well they should be able to voice their opinions on the matter, it doesnt have to be listened to by anyone but how do you define acceptable? Is desent not allowed on the board?

Political correctness in a US import, if someone wanna bitch, be political incorrect, slag off something why cant they express it without getting threatened kicked or banned(within limitations) .

Foul language; its not like we haven’t ever heard foul language before. Are certain people trying to sanitise this board?

Sparks

Originally posted by Qadhafi
Freedom of speech; if someone doesn’t give a toss if a kid got slated (I’m not saying I dont) well they should be able to voice their opinions on the matter, it doesnt have to be listened to by anyone but how do you define acceptable? Is desent not allowed on the board?

Political correctness in a US import, if someone wanna bitch, be political incorrect, slag off something why cant they express it without getting threatened kicked or banned(within limitations) .

Foul language; its not like we haven’t ever heard foul language before. Are certain people trying to sanitise this board?

Bad argument. We don't have freedom of speech here, observe:
**** **** **** ******

We feel it's better that some words be blanked out, but it's a form of censorship that most people feel comfortable with because it serves no purpose to use those words beyond viscereal satisfaction for the user.

There are other artifical restrictions in here - you can't attack the poster, you can't start a thread without giving your opinion, and so on. Requiring that posters with opinions that offend everyone (without the saving grace of being right and/or defendable) keep those opinions to themselves is not a massive impediment to debate.

redflaremist

heya

i'm involved in running a (real life) political discussion group called "bad thoughts" which usually runs every fortnight or so. its not aligned to any political party! its just a discussion group. i guess its aligned to the Bad Books librarywhich is here ( http://www.geocities.com/badbooksdublin/index3.htm )

read the posting guidelines for this board. there's nothing about posting up notices for events - but is it alright to do this?

Éomer of Rohan

I've seen the anti-globalisation lot post up events notices every so often - so I guess it is ok - but please I wouldn't fall into their mistake of posting the same flipping message in three seperate purpose created threads - it's just spamming.

If you feel that this still might be dubious, announce your event and continue to justify the announcement with a discussion began by yourself on the topic of the announcement since it would naturally be political.

thesecret7

you are allowed to say what you wish on this board as long as you conform to what boards.ie says.Have a nice day:)

Rock Climber

Whats the position on polls?
Should there be a new guideline whereby a poster puts up a maximum of two polls and no more for a month.

I don't know about anyone else, but there are nearly as many polls as threads here now and all mostly from the one poster.

It's making me dizzy

Opinions anyone?
Mods what do ye think?

Villain

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Opinions anyone?
Mods what do ye think?

Yep I defo think a limit should be put on polls, arcadegame2004 has gone mad posting polls. Theres 6 in the first page!!!:rolleyes:

Victor

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Should there be a new guideline whereby a poster puts up a maximum of two polls and no more for a month.

I'm not sure if there shold be a hard and fast limit, but some spamming could be addressed. For example, having a poll for each EU contituency is good. Having several on the constitutional amendment is a bit mad, Ted.

bonkey

A couple of thoughts as to how this could be limited?

I thought about perhaps :

1) No poll on a "general topic" which has a poll on teh first page without first clearing with a moderator. (e.g. IRA, Palestine/Israel, War on Iraq, Referendum etc.)

or the more draconian :

2) No poll without clearing with a moderator

...but I haven't even discussed any of this with the other mods...who may prefer to leave it the way it is for all I know.

But please....reasonable suggestions only.

Brown (or other-coloured) envelopes to the usual address please : /dev/null
jc

Victor

I would go with 2 - moderator approval - right across boards.ie. While, I've been known to have post a few polls myself, at least I try to cover as many points of view as possible, in a graduated scale from 1 to 5, not 1,4,2,5,3, not 1,5 not 1,2,3 (when the scale extends to 5).

There are just too many people out there that spam polls, without thinking.

The Corinthian

There are just too many people out there that spam polls, without thinking.