Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
143
Two Rule Updates
October 26, 2016 at 7:29 pm
Staff have discussed at length two rules based on recent events on the forums, and have voted to do the following:
1) The "Overwhelmingly Negative Influences" rule has been removed. it was originally conceived to help us with disruptive members, but ever since we expanded our definition of trolling to include "disrupting normal discussion", we now feel that this rule is redundant and also possibly confusing. The staff feel like the current trolling rule is enough to ban members who aren't contributing to discussions properly.
2) The "Doxing" rule has been updated to the following:
Quote:Doxing
Doxing is not allowed. We consider doxing to be the act of posting private or personally identifiable information about any person, whether they are a member of these forums or not. Private or personally identifiable information includes but is not limited to: real names, ages, locations, details about personal lives and relationships, unless this information has been shared by the person in question via a publicly accessible post, or on their profile page. Further exceptions will be made to information which is already deemed "public knowledge" such as information regarding famous people. Staff reserve the right to determine whether the information is public knowledge or not.
The punishment for violating this rule will be a permanent ban.
We feel that this strengthens the doxing rule whilst allowing people to discuss events relating to famous people (e.g. politicians, celebrities, etc.) who are already in the public eye.
- Atheist Forums Staff
Posts: 28304
Threads: 522
Joined: June 16, 2015
Reputation:
90
RE: Two Rule Updates
October 26, 2016 at 7:31 pm
I can live with that.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
Posts: 12743
Threads: 92
Joined: January 3, 2016
Reputation:
85
RE: Two Rule Updates
October 26, 2016 at 7:31 pm
Awesome.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
RE: Two Rule Updates
October 26, 2016 at 7:49 pm
Thanks Tibs!
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 3879
Threads: 21
Joined: June 6, 2016
Reputation:
39
RE: Two Rule Updates
October 26, 2016 at 7:52 pm
I think y'all did a great job with this whole ordeal.
“What screws us up the most in life is the picture in our head of what it's supposed to be.”
Also if your signature makes my scrolling mess up "you're tacky and I hate you."
Posts: 23056
Threads: 26
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: Two Rule Updates
October 26, 2016 at 8:40 pm
The right decision, thanks for listening.
Posts: 4940
Threads: 99
Joined: April 17, 2011
Reputation:
45
RE: Two Rule Updates
October 26, 2016 at 10:23 pm
Sounds like I missed some drama right before I came back. Oh well.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
Posts: 9479
Threads: 116
Joined: July 5, 2015
Reputation:
23
RE: Two Rule Updates
October 26, 2016 at 10:48 pm
(This post was last modified: October 26, 2016 at 10:49 pm by Excited Penguin.)
Interesting.
Question, though. Is this shoot first, ask later, or are we allowed to post such details about others with their permission? I don't see anything about consented sharing of such information about another person. What is the point then, of the rule, in that context, or is this forum simply averse to fostering any private information about anyone unless it's strictly about them and posted by themselves? How does the one about relationships work then? How would one post about it on their profile page or in a public post "first" without violating this same rule themselves?
Also, you (staff) just prohibited anyone talking about anything private unless it only involves them or someone famous. I'm just making sure you get that.
To reiterate an earlier point, how and why is it this forum's business if I want someone else to be able to post personal details about me in particular or me in relation to them, and if it isn't, how might this be adressed in the context of the new rule?
Posts: 9479
Threads: 116
Joined: July 5, 2015
Reputation:
23
RE: Two Rule Updates
October 26, 2016 at 11:23 pm
(This post was last modified: October 26, 2016 at 11:30 pm by Excited Penguin.)
I see no one is taking me up on that.
I will point out, however, that even as the events that precipitated this new rule didn't involve most members of this forum, still, don't be so quick to think it won't create some headaches, or, at the very least, some confusion.
If this rule is to be followed that means no more complaining about family members, strangers, lovers, neighbours, friends, what have you. At least technically speaking, mentioning private details about any of your relationships or about the people close to you in your lives would violate this rule and would, supposedly, get you permabanned. Now you might think, hey, I trust the stuff, they're not that censoring,they won't ban me the next time I mention my grandma's asthma and instead look the other way by not classifying the recounting of my first date or the advice I sought for my marital problems as details about those people's personal lives and relationships. How sure are you about that?
And let's say no newbie who hasn't witnessed the events leading up to this will ever be confused by this rule and their activity or desire to remain here will remain unaffected.
One of two things will happen. Well, three things.
People will stop talking about anything at all involving anyone else that might be classified as personal unless that information has been posted by that same person on this forum first. What are the chances of that happening? Also, no more details about your relationships under any circumstances.
A lot of people will get banned.
Or, the staff will blatantly ignore their own rule over and over again until they modify it further. Excepting some "special" cases, of course.
Who is excited to see how all this turns out?
Posts: 15351
Threads: 118
Joined: January 13, 2014
Reputation:
117
RE: Two Rule Updates
October 26, 2016 at 11:37 pm
(October 26, 2016 at 10:48 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Interesting.
Question, though. Is this shoot first, ask later, or are we allowed to post such details about others with their permission? I don't see anything about consented sharing of such information about another person. What is the point then, of the rule, in that context, or is this forum simply averse to fostering any private information about anyone unless it's strictly about them and posted by themselves? How does the one about relationships work then? How would one post about it on their profile page or in a public post "first" without violating this same rule themselves?
Also, you (staff) just prohibited anyone talking about anything private unless it only involves them or someone famous. I'm just making sure you get that.
To reiterate an earlier point, how and why is it this forum's business if I want someone else to be able to post personal details about me in particular or me in relation to them, and if it isn't, how might this be adressed in the context of the new rule?
Interesting how the person who prompted this change in the rules suddenly has a bunch of issues with it.
If a person has posted information about themselves (like, for example, their first name), then we will not consider using this information as a violation of the doxing rule. Also, I know you have no way of knowing this, but we do actually discuss and investigate suspected rules violations. If a person reports a post in which they suspect a doxing violation has occured, we will generally unapprove the post (quarantine it) and ask the party who may have been doxed if they are okay with it. If they say they are fine, then we won't act. If they say they did not give permission, then we will.
This is an easy rule to follow. Don't reveal information about others that they have not given you express permission to reveal. If you insist on being a repulsive, manipulative asshole, then we will treat you as such.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
|