[ButteBlues]

While I'm most certain the staff has pondered the thought, and are likely in the process of creating them as I type, I believe that a set of guidelines ought to be established for Social Discussion.

Of course, the primary concern is how to enforce the rules without becoming too strict or authoritarian. It boils down to "Where does one draw the line between appropriate and inappropriate?"

Throughout the Internet, one can find a plethora of fora about any topic imaginable. Even more diverse are the rules they employ and the methods by which they are enforced. One one end of the spectrum, you have sites like Something Awful which are generally lenient about rules, and utilize the community to set up a sort of "mob rule" where the staff trusts the community to point out the idiots and ask for them to be banned. They also don't much care if X called you Y name; it's the Internet and you should just get over it. Personally, I'm in full support of this sort of policy. The community is smart enough to know who they do and do not want around - and like I said, "it's the Internet", so if you get upset over someone calling you a worthless bag of fecal matter, then you need to reevaluate your reason for being on the Internet in the first place . On the other, you have sites that have the strictest of guidelines and enforce them as if the means to the end. They're authoritarian and they like it. Often, some of the better members of the site get caught up in a mess of bureaucracy that only ends in your typical drama-bombing and miniature War & Peace in virtual form.

My question is: what sort of rules and enforcement policy does the staff or administrative team desire for this site?

[LegoAddict]

I like the forum rules as presented at the Myst and Uru Obsession board

Myst & URU Obsession Forums -> Myst & URU Obsession Forum Rules and Guidelines


They're quite clear, but if your words are well chosen you can express basically anything you want. The mods are fairly forgiving as well.

[brandx]

The rules here are pretty simple really.

http://socialdiscussion.com/forum-ru...es.html#post96

[UbuntuniX]

It's not too difficult: Put the rules as strict as necessary, and enforce them only when you see fit. Works for me.

[ButteBlues]

Originally Posted by LegoAddict I like the forum rules as presented at the Myst and Uru Obsession board Myst & URU Obsession Forums -> Myst & URU Obsession Forum Rules and Guidelines They're quite clear, but if your words are well chosen you can express basically anything you want. The mods are fairly forgiving as well.

Those rules seem quite fair; I like them.

Originally Posted by ubuntu-geek The rules here are pretty simple really. http://socialdiscussion.com/forum-ru...es.html#post96

I do not have the correct permissions to view that page.

Originally Posted by UbuntuniX It's not too difficult: Put the rules as strict as necessary, and enforce them only when you see fit. Works for me.

Those sort of rules tend towards an enforcement policy where rules are enforced as a means to an end rather than as the end they were written to achieve.

[brandx]

Originally Posted by ButteBlues Those rules seem quite fair; I like them. I do not have the correct permissions to view that page. Those sort of rules tend towards an enforcement policy where rules are enforced as a means to an end rather than as the end they were written to achieve.

Fixed

[ButteBlues]

Originally Posted by ubuntu-geek Fixed

As a matter of clarification, am I allowed to say things like, "Hillary Duff is possibly the worst attempt at a musician and she, along with Fall Out Boy and every other retarded little sorry excuse for a band, should be rounded up and thrown off a cliff into a pit of spikes," or does that fall under 'personal attacks'?

[brandx]

Originally Posted by ButteBlues As a matter of clarification, am I allowed to say things like, "Hillary Duff is possibly the worst attempt at a musician and she, along with Fall Out Boy and every other retarded little sorry excuse for a band, should be rounded up and thrown off a cliff into a pit of spikes," or does that fall under 'personal attacks'?

Nope, a personal attack is if I insulted you on this forum or another member and vice versa..

[ButteBlues]

Originally Posted by ubuntu-geek Nope, a personal attack is if I insulted you on this forum or another member and vice versa..

Very cool - just wanted to clear that up.

(Another forum I used to frequent had the same rule verbatim, but interpreted it to be insulting anyone regardless of whether or not they'd ever so much as looked at the site. Quite silly, in my opinion.)

[brandx]

Originally Posted by ButteBlues Very cool - just wanted to clear that up. (Another forum I used to frequent had the same rule verbatim, but interpreted it to be insulting anyone regardless of whether or not they'd ever so much as looked at the site. Quite silly, in my opinion.)

glad we got it cleared up..

[panickedthumb]

ButteBlues: There's a lot of debate about that with the Imus thing. As far as the FCC is concerned you can totally slam a public figure, whether they're a politician or a celebrity, but making general remarks about a group of people or treating private individuals the same way is a no-no.

I'd be really upset though if I went to a forum and couldn't slam Hillary Duff. I mean, who deserves it more than she does?

[utabintarbo]

Originally Posted by panickedthumb ButteBlues: There's a lot of debate about that with the Imus thing. As far as the FCC is concerned you can totally slam a public figure, whether they're a politician or a celebrity, but making general remarks about a group of people or treating private individuals the same way is a no-no. ...

AFAIK, the FCC does not regulate the internet. Have I missed something?

[panickedthumb]

It just struck me as a tangent to draw, as that's *kinda* the way the rules work here.

[ETS]

Without the rules, a lot of swearing and hatred would occur. Lets just say that they create order out of chaos.

[latecomer]

rules 3, 4 & 5 seem pretty straightforward and reasonable.

i don't fully understand rule 1, unless it's an alternative formulation of rule 3.

as for rule 2, 'terrorist' has become a mostly political term and, as they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
is one allowed to launch into a speech about how one hates the fact that some people, who seem to be perfectly reasonable in most areas, nevertheless seem to lose all capacity for rational thought in others?
which leads me nicely to: does 'religion bashing' mean members of one religion having a poke at members of another, or is one not allowed to deplore the continued survival of this affliction in general?

[ButteBlues]

Bashing is any prejudicial, biased, gratuitous attack on something.

Criticism or debate is allowed. Bashing is not.

[vkkim]

Originally Posted by ETS Without the rules, a lot of swearing and hatred would occur. Lets just say that they create order out of chaos.

I don't understand why swearing is moderated--many times swear words are very appropriate. I believe it's very possible for people to have a civilized discussion while inserting swears here and there to keep the conversation lively and colorful. People use swear words in the vernacular, and they should be used to allow the full range of linguistic expression.

Not to mention those euphamisms are really painful to read... as well as awkward and completely useless.

[matthew]

Originally Posted by vkkim I don't understand why swearing is moderated--many times swear words are very appropriate. I believe it's very possible for people to have a civilized discussion while inserting swears here and there to keep the conversation lively and colorful. People use swear words in the vernacular, and they should be used to allow the full range of linguistic expression. Not to mention those euphamisms are really painful to read... as well as awkward and completely useless.

Actually, we have been extremely lax on swearing thus far. As long as it's not directed at another user or excessive to the point of distraction it's been left alone.

(Hopefully no one takes that as license for trying to turn the forums blue...we would just prefer to keep things as free as possible, as long as people are respected and the atmosphere in here remains friendly.)

[vkkim]

Originally Posted by matthew Actually, we have been extremely lax on swearing thus far. As long as it's not directed at another user or excessive to the point of distraction it's been left alone. (Hopefully no one takes that as license for trying to turn the forums blue...we would just prefer to keep things as free as possible, as long as people are respected and the atmosphere in here remains friendly.)

That's pretty much exactly what I wanted to hear.

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by matthew Actually, we have been extremely lax on swearing thus far. As long as it's not directed at another user or excessive to the point of distraction it's been left alone.

Yeah, for whatever reason people have been finding it necessary to type "f***" (sic). So senseless.