[rjwood]

Originally Posted by mmccarthy 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.

As I said, that is a difficult call. However, the rest of my suggestion is doable in my view.

[mmccarthy]

Originally Posted by 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!!

These kind of insults don't really forward a discussion though. Rather they become a tit for tat in trying to outdo each other which is boring for everyone else.

Having said that I don't think it should be against the rules. Just undesirable.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by 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.

Sure, but I said calling what someone posts moronic. I generally don't say anything about the person I'm debating with.

Edit: Don't worry RJ, under the new "admininstration" you'll be able to continue talking about me and insulting me to your heart's content. And it won't bother me a bit because like always, taking it to the man just means you can't refute what I'm saying. Have fun Friend.

[mmccarthy]

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

I'm not sure its wise to depend too much on strong personalities and wise judgment in members. Even if you trust the judgment of all current members you don't know what will happen with future members.

[mmccarthy]

Guys,

Lets try keeping the thread on topic. Its important to get the rules sorted out without distracting it with an argument.

Mary

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by mmccarthy Guys, Lets try keeping the thread on topic. Its important to get the rules sorted out without distracting it with an argument. Mary

What's left to sort out? You can't spam or use racial/ethnic/gender/origin "hate speech." (I'm sure it'll still be ok for the atheists to call Christians anything in the book.) Anything else goes.

[sdkub]

my response is in the forum rules suggestion thread

[Big Dave]

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

Originally Posted by sdkub my response is in the forum rules suggestion thread

There is a discussion with many pertinent, intelligent comments taking place in this thread also. I would advise merging the two threads, so that all suggestions are viewable within the single thread. As these threads grow, they will become confusing to navigate as members get the two threads mixed up.

Obfuscation is always something to avoid on an Internet forum (and in many other areas of life).

[sdkub]

Well the ground rules for a discussion on the JD should be similar to how one discuss in real life.

To me personally, discussions are a great way to accumulate some knowledge and get some quick information around an idea at the same time see how the topic is being recieved in a public arena with different stakeholders.

It's about brining up a topic/concern then allowing people to put in their point of view on the topic. There are no right answers, this is just an opportunity to explore a topic in a public arena with a lot larger and broader base of people then one would get to do in a face to face.

What we want to avoid is people imposing views on another, that's not really a healthy discussion. It also leads to personal attacks.

The rules should form around this notion. Allowing people to talk freely, bring in their point of view so that all of us can pick up information, ideas, thoughts etc.

First there is our core mission statement we should work on. "Discuss topics/issues that are relevant to our lives. . . " (if you got something better chime in)

We discuss in a respectable manner. (we'll set some basic ground rules to promote respect). You can respect someone and still disagree with them.

We can go into finite details about what can't and what isn't allowed. But that will be tedious and might even be aggrevating. So let's setup some basic ground rules, use them out . . . if they don't work we can tweak them as we grow.

* No thread hijacking (simple read the title and the first post, if your post/reply is not relevant to those two you are getting offtopic and hijacking)
* No racist, precjudice, hateful remarks
* No harassment of other members
* No illegal topics: warez, hacks, serials or cracks, sexual x-rate explicit content, porn

KUB

[OrangeCrate]

It's nice to set up rules ahead of time I suppose, but all will be for naught, when the first person drops the gloves and goes for the other one, in one of the threads.

The mods will simply have to stay on top of the action, and blow the whistle when it goes over the line. And it does here, often...

[rjwood]

Originally Posted by mmccarthy These kind of insults don't really forward a discussion though. Rather they become a tit for tat in trying to outdo each other which is boring for everyone else. Having said that I don't think it should be against the rules. Just undesirable.

I agree, Mary. This is the problem with the idea of promoting the concept of 'attacking' anything. One could simply say 'moronic post' instead of 'moron' and think they are hiding the fact they are personally insulting a person. It is a silly, trite and small minded game that adults should be way beyond. These are the reasons some people need to know the rules. It is because they need to know, not how intelligent they sound, but rather how clever they can be.

[Big Dave]

Originally Posted by rjwood It is not the definition that matters in my view, it is what it connotes and/or implies.

Strict, objective definition is very important for forum rules, as well as in legal matters. It leaves no room for people to exculpate themselves via semantic methods.

Originally Posted by rjwood 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.

Not really. The "let them fight it out" method allows the two posters to get everything that they want to say to each other out in the open. It stops feelings being bottled up, often to a point where they will explode and the result we see is a meltdown of epic proportions. If everything is said, it reduces the chances of something being carried over to a new thread. The posters run out of steam after having said everything to each other, and sometimes I've even seen a compromise being made; they learn to ignore each other and just get on with life.

Suppressing this does no good. It's like sweeping the dirt under the rug - you're not taking care of the problem, just covering it up.

Originally Posted by rjwood 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.

"Step in" being the operative part of that sentence.

Step in != locking the thread

However, a moderator trying to act as an officiator between the two so as to allow them to reach an agreement is fine. It takes a good moderator to reach a decision where every party involved is happy.

Originally Posted by rjwood 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.

Azz is a pedantic fool. Mike has certainly been involved in controversy, but I've found him to always be very understanding in all of my dealings with him, especially more recent ones. Mike's heart is in the right place, but he hasn't always been able to please everybody.

Originally Posted by rjwood 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.

CYA - Cover Your Ass.

You have to have rules set that everybody agrees to hold themselves to when they join. If you go around making rules up as situations arise, you will invariably be accused of "favouritism" or "inconsistency."

No rules at all is simply not an option.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by sdkub Well the ground rules for a discussion on the JD should be similar to how one discuss in real life. To me personally, discussions are a great way to accumulate some knowledge and get some quick information around an idea at the same time see how the topic is being recieved in a public arena with different stakeholders. It's about brining up a topic/concern then allowing people to put in their point of view on the topic. There are no right answers, this is just an opportunity to explore a topic in a public arena with a lot larger and broader base of people then one would get to do in a face to face. What we want to avoid is people imposing views on another, that's not really a healthy discussion. It also leads to personal attacks. The rules should form around this notion. Allowing people to talk freely, bring in their point of view so that all of us can pick up information, ideas, thoughts etc. First there is our core mission statement we should work on. "Discuss topics/issues that are relevant to our lives. . . " (if you got something better chime in) We discuss in a respectable manner. (we'll set some basic ground rules to promote respect). You can respect someone and still disagree with them. We can go into finite details about what can't and what isn't allowed. But that will be tedious and might even be aggrevating. So let's setup some basic ground rules, use them out . . . if they don't work we can tweak them as we grow. * No thread hijacking (simple read the title and the first post, if your post/reply is not relevant to those two you are getting offtopic and hijacking) * No racist, precjudice, hateful remarks * No harassment of other members * No illegal topics: warez, hacks, serials or cracks, sexual x-rate explicit content, porn KUB

Is disagreeing with someone harassment? How are defining harassment?

Isn't one of the best ways to explore a topic in a public arena with a lot larger and broader base of people to have your views challenged? I insist that it is. What gets in the way of that kind of constructive discussion is ad hominem attacks, logical fallacies, and turning the discussion away from the topic to the people discussing it.

Let me know if you will prohibit disagreement, debate, challenging people's views, and the like.

Platitudes like "discuss things here like you'd discuss them in real life" aren't useful. They're nice. Not useful. Please be less ambiguous.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by rjwood I agree, Mary. This is the problem with the idea of promoting the concept of 'attacking' anything. One could simply say 'moronic post' instead of 'moron' and think they are hiding the fact they are personally insulting a person. It is a silly, trite and small minded game that adults should be way beyond. These are the reasons some people need to know the rules. It is because they need to know, not how intelligent they sound, but rather how clever they can be.

If you can't handle having your views challenged, maybe you should steer clear of the controversial topics and stick to the forum game threads? What is silly, trite, and small minded is turning discussions about issues into discussions about other people, their backgrounds, what you think makes them tick, etc, over, and over, and over, and over, every time someone disagrees with you. Hell, you don't even wait until someone disagrees with you.

[rjwood]

Originally Posted by OrangeCrate It's nice to set up rules ahead of time I suppose, but all will be for naught, when the first person drops the gloves and goes for the other one, in one of the threads. The mods will simply have to stay on top of the action, and blow the whistle when it goes over the line. And it does here, often...

Nice to have you back, orangecrate.

[rjwood]

Originally Posted by Big Dave Azz is a pedantic fool.

Since you have chosen to tell us what you think of azz as a person when the context of this discussion was about moderatorship, perhaps now you would like to describe yourself to us in as many words.

[rjwood]

Originally Posted by Rasczak challenged,

There we go, 'challenged' is a good word instead of 'attack'. I knew there had to be something constructive in that post worth reading..

[sdkub]

Both of you are pushing this thread into a personal convesration about your feelings for each other. Stop it! Move it to PM, Email, Phone, IM or whatever.

This topic is about community rules. Simple . . . the rules that will set the foundation for how we interact with each other.

These are the base rules

* No thread hijacking (simple read the title and the first post, if your post/reply is not relevant to those two you are getting offtopic and hijacking)
* No racist, precjudice, hateful remarks
* No harassment of other members
* No illegal topics: warez, hacks, serials or cracks, sexual x-rate explicit content, porn

The next step is breaking them down into specific examples, situations. Stay on topic.

[OrangeCrate]

Originally Posted by rjwood Nice to have you back, orangecrate.

Thanks.

[latecomer]

Originally Posted by OrangeCrate It's nice to set up rules ahead of time I suppose, but all will be for naught, when the first person drops the gloves and goes for the other one, in one of the threads. The mods will simply have to stay on top of the action, and blow the whistle when it goes over the line. And it does here, often...

QFT.

here we go