[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by mmccarthy I agree this is the ideal situation. However, the nature of a site like this is going to lead to personal conflicts between members. There is a reason that a lot of sites ban topics on Politics and Religion. A basic set of guidelines outlining what is acceptable means no one is in any doubt if they cross the line.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by mmccarthy My view on this is if a discussion deteriorates into a personal to and fro between two members then they should be left to it. Unless a member is being victimised in some way and unable to defend themselves or the insults go beyond the bounds of decency then I don't think they should be interfered with. They will eventually get fed up and move on to something else.

I underlined what I feel are subjective criterea - in other words, how is it decided what constitutes "victimised" or "beyond the bounds of decency?" Is being sarcastic in calling someone "genius" victimizing them or going beyond the bounds of decency? How about taunting a moderator with words like "go ahead and ban me little man?"

There are behaviors among others that annoy me (like diverting the topic of a thread or refusing to support your points) that others are perfectly ok with. Meanwhile, taking apart someone's argument and expalaining what I see wrong with it I'd consider typical or expected behavior on forums like these, but there are others who are upset by it.

I'll follow the rules of this forum, whatever they are, or if I can't abide by them with good conscience, I'll move on. If there are no rules, and anything goes, I plan to continue participating exactly as I have up to this point.

Originally Posted by mmccarthy If two members develop an antagonistic relationship which is constantly interfering in other members threads then there needs to be some conflict resolution where if they can't learn to get on then they either avoid each other or agree to stay out of other members threads. This kind of thing can only be dealt with on a case by case basis and I don't think you can set up rules for it. This is just a personal opinion and not an official stance by any means.

I think it is easy to set up rules for it. First of all, if two people argue with each other a lot, what is the harm so long as it pertains to the issue? I'd hope that's what the forum is for, and others should join in. If, however, the argument winds up being off topic, or becomes personal - ie, talking about the other person, instead of the other person's views, then it should be moderated. Prohibit that kind of discussion and you won't see the kinds of problems this forum has seen recently.

[rjwood]

I would say that words are owned by people, and they are a reflection of such.

When one makes a statement such as

Originally Posted by eric Yet another transparent passive aggressive stunt that serves only to make you look foolish and stir up yuk yuks amongst the little clique of whacko-liberal bed-wetters and head-nodders you seek reassurance and validation from. For you to know about the character "LT Rasczak" means you know where it comes from, so its obvious your feigned ignorance of the title and genre was intentional and contrived, not to mention perfectly childish.

That is their view and they open the door of the discussion about about them because they are making a personal judgement about others. So, naturally, what may follow is "who are these people you are talking about, eric?" Now some may consider that undo, but I believe it is the natural flow of a conversation. If you do not want to talk about you, then don't bring your personal judgements and demons into the dialogue.

Personally, I have no problem talking about me. It's what I know best. Why talk from a perspective that is second best?

[mmccarthy]

Originally Posted by Rasczak I underlined what I feel are subjective criterea - in other words, how is it decided what constitutes "victimised" or "beyond the bounds of decency?" Is being sarcastic in calling someone "genius" victimizing them or going beyond the bounds of decency? How about taunting a moderator with words like "go ahead and ban me little man?"

Personally I think that insults only work when the person being insulted reacts to them. Using sarcasm and taunts to get a rise out of someone is unfortunately a means used by many people to win an argument. If you try to moderate sarcasm, where do you draw the line. I used the terms above in their strictest sense of the word.

If a moderator can't handle a dispute diplomatically they should call in another moderator or admin to deal with the issue. Insults directed at moderators while undesirable don't really justify banning on a site like this. In the end of the day moderators are just members.

The purpose of this site in my opinion is freedom of expression. When you don't like how someone expresses themselves then my advice is to ignore them. Most members are well able to stand up for themselves. In all honesty some of the forums like politics and religion are probably not suitable for those who aren't.

Personally, I've never been involved in a discussion on politics or religion where someone didn't lose their cool sooner or later. They tend to be subjects that people have passionate feelings about. If you are going to include forums on these subjects then you have to expect the conversations to get out of hand sometimes.

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.

Originally Posted by Rasczak There are behaviors among others that annoy me (like diverting the topic of a thread or refusing to support your points) that others are perfectly ok with. Meanwhile, taking apart someone's argument and expalaining what I see wrong with it I'd consider typical or expected behavior on forums like these, but there are others who are upset by it.

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.

Originally Posted by Rasczak I think it is easy to set up rules for it. First of all, if two people argue with each other a lot, what is the harm so long as it pertains to the issue? I'd hope that's what the forum is for, and others should join in. If, however, the argument winds up being off topic, or becomes personal - ie, talking about the other person, instead of the other person's views, then it should be moderated. Prohibit that kind of discussion and you won't see the kinds of problems this forum has seen recently.

I don't disagree, but how would you phrase a rule like that. The only thing I can think of is thread hijacking. There is always going to be some level of personal insults thrown around in an argument. At what point does it become a hijacked thread and require moderation.

I'm not saying your points are wrong far from it. To some extent I am playing devils advocate here.

[mmccarthy]

I agree that posting this opened the poster up to a return volley.

Yet another transparent passive aggressive stunt that serves only to make you look foolish and stir up yuk yuks amongst the little clique of whacko-liberal bed-wetters and head-nodders you seek reassurance and validation from. For you to know about the character "LT Rasczak" means you know where it comes from, so its obvious your feigned ignorance of the title and genre was intentional and contrived, not to mention perfectly childish.

The only thing I would say is that the resulting "discussion" is bound to hijack the thread away from its original subject and is now of no use to the other members who will have no interest in posting further as they do not wish to become involved in a private war.

I think the point here is not whether this post deserves a response but whether the other participants in the thread wish to 'listen' to it. Also remember by responding you are validating the post. Ignoring it would be my response. Its hard to have an argument with yourself.

[rjwood]

Originally Posted by mmccarthy I agree that posting this opened the poster up to a return volley. The only thing I would say is that the resulting "discussion" is bound to hijack the thread away from its original subject and is now of no use to the other members who will have no interest in posting further as they do not wish to become involved in a private war. I think the point here is not whether this post deserves a response but whether the other participants in the thread wish to 'listen' to it. Also remember by responding you are validating the post. Ignoring it would be my response. Its hard to have an argument with yourself.

I can agree with this. There comes a point and time when it is enough from verbal abuse towards members and an individual follows people around in an attempt to poison thread after thread. This is a perfect example. Buying a Car or Insurance?

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by mmccarthy If you try to moderate sarcasm, where do you draw the line.

I'd like to know.

Originally Posted by mmccarthy 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.

Originally Posted by mmccarthy 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?

Originally Posted by mmccarthy 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.

Originally Posted by mmccarthy 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.

Originally Posted by mmccarthy 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.

[rjwood]

Originally Posted by Rasczak Something like this: Attack the post, not the poster. Personal attacks of any kind will not be tolerated.

How about this: Don't attack anything or anyone. Just share, talk and comment about issues and interests. Be vigorous and passionate if you like, but remain respectful and own your words.

[MRiGnS]

how would you like the idea of separating the threads two topics in two different threads?

Some Mod with the might(power?) of Greyskull could do the job!

[mmccarthy]

Originally Posted by MRiGnS how would you like the idea of separating the threads two topics in two different threads? Some Mod with the might(power?) of Greyskull could do the job!

I agree.

However, there is some restructuring going on at the moment that prevents me from doing so. However, I will do as soon as its feasible.

[rjwood]

Originally Posted by MRiGnS how would you like the idea of separating the threads two topics in two different threads? Some Mod with the might(power?) of Greyskull could do the job!

Good idea!

[Big Dave]

Originally Posted by rjwood How about this: Don't attack anything or anyone. Just share, talk and comment about issues and interests. Be vigorous and passionate if you like, but remain respectful and own your words.

Subjective, open to inconsistent interpretation and ambiguous.

In all honesty, RJ, that's where I can see problems arising. In principle, what you are trying to achieve with that rule is exactly the sort of forum we want; however, in practice, I can't see it being successful.

[rjwood]

Originally Posted by Big Dave Subjective, open to inconsistent interpretation and ambiguous.

aren't all rules and regulations, unless you are going to actually form everyones mouth to get the words you want?

Originally Posted by Big Dave In all honesty, RJ, that's where I can see problems arising. In principle, what you are trying to achieve with that rule is exactly the sort of forum we want; however, in practice, I can't see it being successful.

Like I said, you and I don't even need rules then, right? This is esentially an attempt to draw guideline for those who have to have them so they don't continue to get carried away, isn't it?

What I described is exactly how I behave unless I or someone else is attacked without provocation.

[mmccarthy]

Hi Dave,

Do you think a rule against thread hijacking would work?

[mmccarthy]

Hi everyone,

At sdkub's request I am looking for input from members on drawing up a new set of guidelines/rules for posting on this site.

These are the rules that all members will be asked to abide by and should allow for the smooth operation of the forums. This site is one where freedom of expression should be respected and as such we don't want to make the rules too onerous. However, there should be some basic guidelines pointing out what is unacceptable.

The basic rules like ...

• Spammers will have their posts deleted and their accounts banned
• Posts containing porn will be deleted and users may find their accounts banned
• Use of foul and abusive language is unacceptable. Such posts will be edited or deleted and users may find their accounts banned.

are a given I believe (although feel free to disagree with me).

Another suggestion I would make is the following ...

• Thread hijacking can result in posts being deleted.

Please feel free to disagree with any of my suggestions and add some of your own.

I think we can reach a consensus on a set of rules that we can all abide by and still enjoy the freedom to air our views.

Please try to stay on topic in this thread and not get too bogged down in arguing over particular suggestions. I would like to hear all opinions so we can reach a compromise on what suits most members best.

Mary

[latecomer]

I think that what you've posted is sufficient. Clear, simple, objective.
Nothing more needed, really.

[mmccarthy]

Ok I split these posts away from qtwerps "Have fun everyone" thread as it was obviously hijacking it

Mary

[mmccarthy]

I have also created a new thread about site rules that you may be interested in checking out.

Forum Rules - Suggestions?

[Charbucks]

Originally Posted by rjwood How about this: Don't attack anything or anyone. Just share, talk and comment about issues and interests. Be vigorous and passionate if you like, but remain respectful and own your words.

RJ, I'm just curious to know your definition of attack. I don't think it's possible to have a debate without responding directly to other posts. If you post "The earth is flat" and I respond with "Oh really? That's interesting, because I just flew around the world and it seemed pretty round to me" - would that constitute an attack?

Also... moderating sarcasm would make me cry.

[Big Dave]

Originally Posted by mmccarthy Hi Dave, Do you think a rule against thread hijacking would work?

A site-wide official definition of "hijacking" has to be agreed upon. If a rule were just to say:

"Hijacking any thread is disallowed. If any thread is hijacked, it will be locked. Repeat offenders will be punished."

... or words to that effect, well where is the definition of hijacking? Conversation does naturally ebb and flow, and threads adapt to a slightly new topic under the umbrella of the old one when the focus of discussion shifts. How does a moderator decide when a thread topic is being adhered too, and when the thread has been pulled off-topic?

Of course, there will be scenarios where it will be blatantly obvious. Case in point: flame wars. When somebody resorts to a personal attack, and the thread degrades into back-and-forth insults between two posters, then a thread hijacking has taken place. However, in that situation, I've often found it's better just to let everybody get arguments out of their system, and they run out of steam, and the thread dies. Locking the thread means the two posters do not finish their argument, and the pent-up anger will rear its ugly head again in another thread, invariably igniting another flame war.

This is the sort of situation that has to be handled carefully. I'm not so sure creating a rule against it would be the best plan of action.

[rjwood]

Originally Posted by Charbucks RJ, I'm just curious to know your definition of attack. I don't think it's possible to have a debate without responding directly to other posts. If you post "The earth is flat" and I respond with "Oh really? That's interesting, because I just flew around the world and it seemed pretty round to me" - would that constitute an attack? Also... moderating sarcasm would make me cry.

It is not the definition that matters in my view, it is what it connotes and/or implies. I would say 'attack' is intimidating to many people. If the rules suggest you will need a 'warrior mentality' to participate here you are qualifying your membership. That is a very bad idea. The only people you want the rules to disqualify are those whose intention are to disrupt, disturb and troll. The word 'attack' implies disruption is not only welcome, but preferred.

My suggestion is only two sentences. If I were to write the entire set rules myself, I would certainly include much more substance to them.

BTW- nothing wrong with a little sarcasm either.

Look, like I have said before, the only people who even need to understand the rules are those who intend to attemp to walk up to the line and try not to cross it. That is just silly and immature to me. I don't really care what the rules say, I will attempt to remain respectful and honest toward others as long as they do not ridicule and insult members here without provocation. That said, I would certainly give the moderators the chance to set the tone. From what I have been witnessing for the last couple of day's, we will be fine.