View Single Post
Old 07-31-2007   #26 (permalink)
Rasczak
Stirrer Of Shit
 
Rasczak's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oahu
Posts: 4,208
Send a message via ICQ to Rasczak Send a message via AIM to Rasczak Send a message via Yahoo to Rasczak
Default Discussion on Site Focus

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmccarthy View Post
If you try to moderate sarcasm, where do you draw the line.
I'd like to know.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mmccarthy View Post
In all honesty some of the forums like politics and religion are probably not suitable for those who aren't.
I couldn't agree more. I've said the same myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmccarthy View Post
I would consider victimisation to be the kind of posts that insult someone based on their colour, religion, etc. Racial slurs are not acceptable in the same way porn is not acceptable. These are common lines of decency most of us live by.
Then that's what the rules need to say. And that's really all I'm asking for - clear rules, or lack therof. Consistency. If anything goes, that's great. If I can't criticize someone's argument, that's fine too, but I'll have to consider whether I'd want to remain. I just want to know what is ok and what isn't.

Can you please get together with the admin and put something official out?




Quote:
Originally Posted by mmccarthy View Post
Hijacking a thread for a personal war is unacceptable in most forums. However, the one point I would make is that it takes two members to hijack a thread. On to initiate the argument and the other to respond.

As you say, there are different opinions on what is acceptable in a members behavior. General guidelines that everyone has to follow are the only way to deal with this. However, I would advise against too many rules on what you can or can't do in threads.
Points taken. All I'm saying is whether there are just going to be a few rules or a whole lot of them, or none at all, the policy needs to be clear. Otherwise you guys open yourselves up to too much drama.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mmccarthy View Post
I don't disagree, but how would you phrase a rule like that.
Something like this:

Attack the post, not the poster. Personal attacks of any kind will not be tolerated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmccarthy View Post
I'm not saying your points are wrong far from it. To some extent I am playing devils advocate here.
Thanks. I hope you all will consider my suggetions - at least the one about being clear about the rules.
Eric
"For whoever habitually suppresses the truth in the interests of tact will produce a deformity from the womb of his thought." -Sir Basil H. Liddel-Hart
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."—Ronald Reagan

http://self-composed.com
Rasczak is offline   Reply With Quote