[Charbucks]

What if the mods just don't take action until a post is reported? I don't know how often that happens, but I know I've never done it. I agree with Dave though, I think it's better to let the argument run its course rather than lock it down. What's the point of a discussion forum if we're not allowed to discuss?

[TruthFatal]

I agree with those rules, but I think that "hijacking" should be defined in some way. A post on the fifth page - assuming twenty-five posts per page - of a thread may have little or no bearing on the original post, even if it is completely in line with the direction the thread has taken.

I would also like to see "trolls" included in the First or Third line of your "basic rules" (using the Wikipedia definition of a Troll).

As for "guidelines," which I view as separate from rules...

I would also like to see a FAQ or "HOWTO" set up with specific information about conflict resolution (Either between two regular members or between a member and a Moderator), and how to report possible infractions (It took me a while to find that little flag icon).

[rjwood]

Originally Posted by Charbucks What if the mods just don't take action until a post is reported? I don't know how often that happens, but I know I've never done it. I agree with Dave though, I think it's better to let the argument run its course rather than lock it down. What's the point of a discussion forum if we're not allowed to discuss?

I mostly agree with how Mary said she would handle it.

The problem with the 'let them argue it out' argument is that unless there is a final resolution in the end, the process will continue in other threads anyway. If it is recognised by a moderator that this is not happening, they may need to step in and facilitate it. There is a point in any new relationship when people have a tendency to jockey for what the see as their place. This is normal. Some of what we have been witnessing and enduring is beyond that, it is pure and simple harassment, ridicule and trolling and needs to be addressed somehow.

Sometimes a moderator has to step in and make sure a resolution or agreement between the two parties occurs, otherwise it's fruitless to let people argue constantly. Moderators have to have some wisdom, that is what makes moderators like mattew and mmcarthy good at what they do. azz over at ubuntu was an excellent moderator, but mike (kiwi) put an end to that as he has made an enormous amount of bad calls there.

When I ran my forum, I had the attitude that I would deal with issues if and when they would arise. I never even really read the default set of rules that came with the software. When Utabintarbo showed up and asked if he could participate (he and I had had some aruments at ubuntu and he had recently been banned there), I said 'of course your welcome'. I set the tone right off the bat by making everyone feel like they belonged and I would treat them as adults. My forum did not last very long however, not because of what I just talked about but because I just did not want to put the effort into it. I learned some good lessons from it, and I found out who some people were and I learned to admire some of them.

[mmccarthy]

Originally Posted by TruthFatal I agree with those rules, but I think that "hijacking" should be defined in some way. A post on the fifth page - assuming twenty-five posts per page - of a thread may have little or no bearing on the original post, even if it is completely in line with the direction the thread has taken.

If you or anyone else has any suggestions on a definition for this I'd welcome it.

Originally Posted by TruthFatal I would also like to see "trolls" included in the First or Third line of your "basic rules" (using the Wikipedia definition of a Troll).

I've no objection to that as long as its based on the wiki def. Anything else would I think be too subjective.

Originally Posted by TruthFatal As for "guidelines," which I view as separate from rules... I would also like to see a FAQ or "HOWTO" set up with specific information about conflict resolution (Either between two regular members or between a member and a Moderator), and how to report possible infractions (It took me a while to find that little flag icon).

I think an FAQ or HOWTO would be in order.

If anyone has any suggestions other than the two above or would like to expand on these, please include them.

The more dialog we get on this the better.

[mmccarthy]

I would appreciate any input on rules or guidelines being posted in the Forum Rules - Suggestions? thread as well.

It would be handy to have the discussion on that in one thread.

[mmccarthy]

I am creating this post to answer some issues raised in the Discussion on Site Focus thread which pertain to this thread.

Originally Posted by RJWood, Discussion on Site Focus Sometimes a moderator has to step in and make sure a resolution or agreement between the two parties occurs, otherwise it's fruitless to let people argue constantly. Moderators have to have some wisdom

I agree with this point. You cannot set rules for every eventuality. Moderators will have to use their judgement to some extent. However, moderators can always ask advice from other moderators or admins. Also as members they are subject to the same rules and guidelines. By this I mean a member can bring a dispute with a moderator or admin to the same conflict resolution procedure as they would with any other member.

Originally Posted by Charbucks, Discussion on Site Focus What if the mods just don't take action until a post is reported? I don't know how often that happens, but I know I've never done it. I agree with Dave though, I think it's better to let the argument run its course rather than lock it down. What's the point of a discussion forum if we're not allowed to discuss?

I wholeheartedly agree. The aim of this is not to impose more rules but rather to create a set of rules that are conducive to free discussion. I would like to see a situation where members are not banned for their posts regardless of how poorly they express their views. Every effort needs to be made to facilitate the resolution of conflicts when they arise.

Originally Posted by Big Dave, 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."

This has been mentioned in this thread already and I would welcome any and all suggestions on how this could be phrased.

[mmccarthy]

I have posted a response to some of the issues raised here in the Forum Rules - Suggestions? thread.

[rjwood]

Perhaps the members involved in the particular thread could be involved with the decision on whether or not a thread is being hijacked. That is not an easy idea to explore but I thought I would mention it.

If the thread starter remains active in the thread, it may be conceivable to permit them to request certain posts be removed. That may also be unfair. However, if one abuses that right by shutting out posts that others feel belonged, it would not take long for members who are offended by the thread starters judgement to understand that person has either bad judgement or is unfair and not waste their time participating in that persons threads.

That could also solve much of the disputes before they go too far. OTOH, it may cause resentment, but with strong personalities and wise judgement on the part of not only moderators, but other members as well, it could work.

I really do think that with enough brainstorming (I hate that word because it reminds me of my corporate years), we could make this happen.

[latecomer]

from Urban Dictionary:
Thread Jacking:
Taking over a thread on a message board by taking a part of the original posted topic, twisting it around and "hijacking" the thread itself. What happens is that the original content contained in the post becomes moot and whatever the "Thread Jacker" has manipulated the content to be becomes the new content thereby "hijacking" the original intent of post. People now respond to the "thread jacker's" input and that becomes the focus of the thread.

Seems a bit verbose. Why not just leave it at 'thread hijacking'? I mean, everyone knows what it is. If members see it happening, they can just point it out and bring the thread back OT. If they don't notice it, then maybe the thread needed jacking.

[fuscia]

what do you mean 'no foul language'? you mean no more 'f-word'?

[Charbucks]

Originally Posted by latecomer Seems a bit verbose. Why not just leave it at 'thread hijacking'? I mean, everyone knows what it is. If members see it happening, they can just point it out and bring the thread back OT. If they don't notice it, then maybe the thread needed jacking.

I agree. If the original topic is so uninteresting that people would rather respond to the hijacking, then maybe that's what it needed. If nobody complains, then I say leave it be.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by mmccarthy [*]Use of foul and abusive language is unacceptable. Such posts will be edited or deleted and users may find their accounts banned.

Mary, I'm glad you guys are working on this. What does "abusive language" mean?

If I say that what another person posted is moronic, and go on to explain why I believe that, is this abusive?

How about if I call someone "genius" in a sarcastic way? Is that abusive?

If I say "you are disgusting" is that abusive?

How about if I say derogatory, stereotypical things about a person's profession, and everyone in it? Will that pass?

How about if one member begins negatively speculating about the personal life of another?


These are all actual examples from this board. I"ll take credit for the first two. If I see something posted that is abundantly stupid or intellectually dishonest, I point it out. And once, I called a moron "genius" sarcastically. The rest is behaviour exhibited by other active members. Just a few of many many examples.

I'm not worried about rules about attacking others because I find it very easy not to attack other people, I just stick to what is posted. However, there are a significant number of people who can be counted on to go personal as soon as they're on the ropes in the discussion. I think you'll save everyone a lot of drama later by making it clear what they can get away with and what the can't.

[mmccarthy]

Originally Posted by fuscia what do you mean 'no foul language'? you mean no more 'f-word'?

I don't think we should go that far

I meant the use of foul language to personally attack another member. Something a little more strenuous than the f-word.

This rule may need some rewording although as I think language on this site can be used in context in some threads I would be reluctant to specify the words. Maybe just add the bit about personal attacks.

[mmccarthy]

Originally Posted by Rasczak Mary, I'm glad you guys are working on this. What does "abusive language" mean? If I say that what another person posted is moronic, and go on to explain why I believe that, is this abusive? How about if I call someone "genius" in a sarcastic way? Is that abusive? If I say "you are disgusting" is that abusive?

While undesirable and maybe not conducive to healthy discussion I wouldn't consider this abusive language. In my view we are speaking more of racial slurs or personal insults on gender etc.

[Rasczak]

Not to sound like a smart ass, but maybe the Admin himself, who is encouraging people to stick with the forum and help it grow, could participate a little more in it himself?

We'd like to hear more from you I'm sure.

[mmccarthy]

Originally Posted by Charbucks I agree. If the original topic is so uninteresting that people would rather respond to the hijacking, then maybe that's what it needed. If nobody complains, then I say leave it be.

This may be a little unfair to the original poster. After all if members don't want to participate in the thread they can start one of their own

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by mmccarthy While undesirable and maybe not conducive to healthy discussion I wouldn't consider this abusive language. In my view we are speaking more of racial slurs or personal insults on gender etc.

Sounds good, that needs to be clear in the rules.

[rjwood]

It seems to me that if a person referrs to another person as a moron or other names, they are opening the door to talk about themselves personally. Lets face it, 'calling' someone a moron is personally attacking their credibility and their mental capacity, not to mention the fact that it an outright insult to mentally handicapped people.

Moron \Mo"ron\ (m[=o]"r[o^]n), n. [Gr. mw^ros foolish, stupid.]
1. (Pedagogy) A mentally retarded person whose intellectual
development proceeds normally up to about the eighth year
of age and is then arrested so that there is little or no
further development; an adult having the mental
development of an 8-to-12-year old. A moron is considered
capable of doing routine work under supervision.
[Webster 1913 Suppl. +PJC]

So use such terms at your own peril, because I will call anyone on that anytime I choose. Period!!

[mmccarthy]

Originally Posted by rjwood Perhaps the members involved in the particular thread could be involved with the decision on whether or not a thread is being hijacked. That is not an easy idea to explore but I thought I would mention it.

It an interesting idea but probably not a practical solution. It opens up the possibility of abuse by members who have a personal gripe with another member.

[mmccarthy]

Originally Posted by latecomer from Urban Dictionary: Thread Jacking: Taking over a thread on a message board by taking a part of the original posted topic, twisting it around and "hijacking" the thread itself. What happens is that the original content contained in the post becomes moot and whatever the "Thread Jacker" has manipulated the content to be becomes the new content thereby "hijacking" the original intent of post. People now respond to the "thread jacker's" input and that becomes the focus of the thread. Seems a bit verbose. Why not just leave it at 'thread hijacking'? I mean, everyone knows what it is. If members see it happening, they can just point it out and bring the thread back OT. If they don't notice it, then maybe the thread needed jacking.

I agree that the definition while verbose would be a good guideline on deciding whether a thread had been hijacked or not.

Some threads naturally drift off topic particularly when they become long. This is not always a bad thing.