Rule Changes + New Restrictions

[Angrboda]

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.

And rightly so.

Its not that something like that ever happened...

I'm sure it was just some apophenia leading you to other conclusions than what you would have otherwise found with an unabridged look at the data.

[Jackalope]

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.

yes, but the user wouldn't be happy about it...

How exactly would it be different were the rules more explicit? That's not what keeps mods within the limits of their authority.

[Jackalope]

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.

And rightly so.

Its not that something like that ever happened...

No it isn't, and it's not like that was the first time, either.

[Lemonvariable72]

3. No Trolling
Trolling is where a person makes a deliberately provocative posting with the aim of inciting an angry response, and is not allowed. As discussions can at times get heated, not all provocative posts will get classed as trolling. However, if a member is found to be making multiple such posts, or appear to only be using the forum to provoke people, they will be in violation of this rule.

For some reason, I read this, closed my eyes, and I saw a batman derp avatar...

Vinny is going to cream himself over this.

[John V]

You're fucking ridiculous John. You've stated clearly what you think the rules should say.

Yes, after I was asked to.

Neither is that option fiesable nor is it based in re-al-it-y. If you don't care the outcome why do you keep on talking? I'm perfectly happy with the consensus rulings enacted by the staff. If they wanted to do whatever they wanted there wouldn't be a need for more than an individuals' whim. You hardly seem objective in your objections, despite your 'noncaring' front. Its quite clear what bothers you, who bothers you, how they bother you, and why. Put on your bigboy pants and get over it. We live in the real world where real people have real arguments and both sides have the freedom to say it in whatever manner they please.

Incorrect. We're on Tiberius's site and have the freedom to sat it in whatever manner he pleases. He can consult others if he wants, but in the end it's his decision.

[Tiberius]

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.

Thanks for the clarification.

Incorrect. We're on Tiberius's site and have the freedom to sat it in whatever manner he pleases. He can consult others if he wants, but in the end it's his decision.

Whilst I originally set up the site, it's almost always been a community project, and certainly today it is entirely funded by the community. So I don't think I really have a claim to it. The staff will attest to the fact that I don't overrule decisions, and I certainly don't go and make changes without having majority support.

[Tonus]

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.

I would remove the part in bold. I like a straightforward explanation of what is intended with the understanding that, as an internet forum, a person who does not like the rules or how they are enforced is welcome to stop taking part in the discussion.

[LastPoet]

Whilst I originally set up the site, it's almost always been a community project, and certainly today it is entirely funded by the community. So I don't think I really have a claim to it. The staff will attest to the fact that I don't overrule decisions, and I certainly don't go and make changes without having majority support.

I can vouch for that!

[John V]

Whilst I originally set up the site, it's almost always been a community project, and certainly today it is entirely funded by the community. So I don't think I really have a claim to it. The staff will attest to the fact that I don't overrule decisions, and I certainly don't go and make changes without having majority support.

Point is that that's your choice. There's usually one person who could pull the plug if they wanted, and the way people refer to you at times I presume that's you.

[Mystical]

why do I feel like someones building a strawman?