Rule Changes + New Restrictions

[John V]

John,

Your suggestion would not work as it isn't the kind of rule we're going for. We aren't banning insults outright. We are banning people who flame or try to incite flame wars.

One off insults are a natural part of discussion. Escalating those insults to the point where you are using them regularly and for seemingly no reason is when it starts to become a problem.

So with that in mind, what are your suggestions?

I think my wording already addresses your concerns:
"posts which only insult and do not add to the discussion"

Insults would be allowed in posts which also substantively add to the discussion.

---

Could it be because you have no argument whatsoever?

Really John, jealousy now?

Previously:

No need for that John V, I have a perfectly functional mouse wheel to skip over your posts. Consider this as me going out of this conversation and out of your hair, I will not waste anymore of your time.

[Cinjin]

John,

Your suggestion would not work as it isn't the kind of rule we're going for. We aren't banning insults outright. We are banning people who flame or try to incite flame wars.

So with that in mind, what are your suggestions?

I think my wording already addresses your concerns:
"posts which only insult and do not add to the discussion"

Insults would be allowed in posts which also substantively add to the discussion.

Oh common John! That's basically what we have in place now and you're still complaining about it. READ the following:

One off insults are a natural part of discussion. Escalating those insults to the point where you are using them regularly and for seemingly no reason is when it starts to become a problem.

I'm out, this is so aggravating. He's such a burr in everyone's side. I'm sure Johnny's a real pleasure at holiday functions.

[LastPoet]

Could it be because you have no argument whatsoever?

Really John, jealousy now?

Previously:

No need for that John V, I have a perfectly functional mouse wheel to skip over your posts. Consider this as me going out of this conversation and out of your hair, I will not waste anymore of your time.

You know, that one was way too good to let it pass by Jealous of Drich and others, really? Precious!

Also, I don't want you to start firing up reports left & right again

You know, because previously:

@ LP: Yay, our first test case! I reported your last post as it was two in a row which insulted me and added nothing to the discussion, and so presumably violate the flaming rule. Let's see what happens...

[John V]

Oh common John! That's basically what we have in place now and you're still complaining about it. READ the following:

One off insults are a natural part of discussion. Escalating those insults to the point where you are using them regularly and for seemingly no reason is when it starts to become a problem.

And which rule is that quote from?

---

You know, that one was way too good to let it pass by Jealous of Drich and others, really? Precious!

Your dictionary is quite strange. No, I'm not jealous of people who are insulted more frequently than I am. I'm watching out for them. Not really for the people already here, as they've proven already to have a thick skin. It's more for the new theist posters. Some of you have taken the position that this is an atheist forum, so screw 'em - if they can't take it, they can leave. The site owner, and the site mission, indicate that that's not the intent.

[Whateverist]

One off insults are a natural part of discussion. Escalating those insults to the point where you are using them regularly and for seemingly no reason is when it starts to become a problem.

I have to admit I've never understood the distinction between flaming and insulting. Does that mean everyone gets one free shot at insulting the other but the next insulting comment is flaming? Or is flaming when it appears the person is only engaging the other person as a personal vendetta?

Personally I wouldn't have a problem if the rules stated something like:

This site was created to permit a wide variety of interactions between people of every stripe of religious belief and disbelief. We endeavor to permit as much freedom as possible for self expression. But somewhere there is a line between permissible styles of expression and vicious cruelty. No manner of pinning down where that line lies will ever be entirely adequate. So suffice to say the volunteer moderators and admins who oversee the site will step in where they deem appropriate. Anyone who finds the moderation here too loose or too stifling is welcome to find a site more to their liking or to start one of their own.

[Chas]

This site was created to permit a wide variety of interactions between people of every stripe of religious belief and disbelief. We endeavor to permit as much freedom as possible for self expression. But somewhere there is a line between permissible styles of expression and vicious cruelty. No manner of pinning down where that line lies will ever be entirely adequate. So suffice to say the volunteer moderators and admins who oversee the site will step in where they deem appropriate. Anyone who finds the moderation here too loose or too stifling is welcome to find a site more to their liking or to start one of their own.

Yeah, exactly that.

[Angrboda]

I do not think that, even if John may or may not have misstepped here, that that is an invitation to pull out your laundry lists, people. That's the job of staff. This thread is for discussion of the rule changes, which John, ineloquently or not, has been addressing.

Consider my hair mussed.




(ETA: The job of staff and people who are in good faith clicking on the report button to report a believed violation of forum rules.)

You previously asked about my background in leadership etc. You didn't ask about my background in rules. I work in contract law and tax law, and am on the board of a non-profit organization. I've seen $200 million deals held up at the eleventh hour due to ambiguity in the wording of the contract. Maybe ambiguity is more apparent to me.

It's not your observational skills I question so much as your diplomacy, constructiveness, ability to 'gitrdone', judgement, intentions, and among others, "work well with others".

I have comparable experience, though I do not consider myself a skilled facilitator or negotiator. Perhaps your heart is in the right place, I'm just not sure that place is where your words are coming from.


And yes, I agree. Words matter. The more important the matter, the more important the words.


(ETA: You are also, seemingly, making assumptions about staff process which I'm not sure you have adequate grounds for making. I'm new here, but I've been moderating on a major channel on IRC for 15 years, and I know it's a hell of a lot more subtle, powerful, and capable process depending on group judgement than just, "Hoss stole my ho'. Let's get a posse together.")

[pocaracas]

One off insults are a natural part of discussion. Escalating those insults to the point where you are using them regularly and for seemingly no reason is when it starts to become a problem.

I have to admit I've never understood the distinction between flaming and insulting. Does that mean everyone gets one free shot at insulting the other but the next insulting comment is flaming? Or is flaming when it appears the person is only engaging the other person as a personal vendetta?

Personally I wouldn't have a problem if the rules stated something like:

This site was created to permit a wide variety of interactions between people of every stripe of religious belief and disbelief. We endeavor to permit as much freedom as possible for self expression. But somewhere there is a line between permissible styles of expression and vicious cruelty. No manner of pinning down where that line lies will ever be entirely adequate. So suffice to say the volunteer moderators and admins who oversee the site will step in where they deem appropriate. Anyone who finds the moderation here too loose or too stifling is welcome to find a site more to their liking or to start one of their own.

That would leave you completely at the mercy of an individual mod... Imagine a mod gets into a heated argument with a user... the mod must refrain him/her-self from hitting the ban hammer.... imagine this particular mod loses control... (it has happened on other forums, could happen here... though, I don't think it could happen with the present mods ).

Rules are required so the users know where the boundaries are... and the mods too.
I like the rules here. simple and lax enough for people to interact, regardless of their mode of speech. Some people use more profanity than others and all can use their own version in here.
And, if any user has a gripe with a rule... he can get the fuck out.... when he signs-up he agrees to abide by the rules and that's one of them... or rather lack of it....

What I said earlier is that this lack of a "no profanity" rule can (and does) repel more theists than atheists...
Though... I would guess that any theist registering on an atheist forum should be expecting it...

[Jackalope]

That would leave you completely at the mercy of an individual mod... Imagine a mod gets into a heated argument with a user... the mod must refrain him/her-self from hitting the ban hammer.... imagine this particular mod loses control... (it has happened on other forums, could happen here... though, I don't think it could happen with the present mods ).

How so? An individual mod doesn't have the authority to ban anyone here (with the exception of obvious spammers). Were it to happen, it would get overturned pretty quickly.

[Angrboda]

Rules are required so the users know where the boundaries are... and the mods too.

"It's only your chains which make you free."

I forget who said it, but it is so true.