Introduction subforum rules and enforcement policy - you need to read this.

[Jackalope]

Reposted by request.

STAFF ANNOUNCEMENT

Due to the abundance of infractions of the primary rule regarding the Introduction Forum, the Staff of AtheistForums.org has voted to implement the following:

Any member of AtheistForums making aggressive, hostile, or remotely confrontational posts INSIDE the Introduction Forum will receive an immediate 25% Warning, an announcement of said warning in the public Staff Log and/or a 24 hour ban. This includes, but is not limited to threats and insults - made whether jokingly or otherwise, underhanded racial/sexual remarks, or any sort of name-calling, including accusations of being a Poe or a Troll.

As an ever-growing internet community we feel it is VERY important that we welcome those willing to introduce themselves in a friendly manner. Yes, we argue and we insult each other, but there are theists out there that we have come to respect, and there are non-believers that deserve to ask questions and make comments without being harassed on their first day here. The Staff does not wish to drive away any member who may be a little naive about their terminology or perhaps unaware of an "inside joke." Smiley faces will not save you from the punishment of this Staff if you violate the Introduction Thread Rule.
Remember what your mom (should've) taught you: If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

If a new member actually is a Troll, he/she will reveal his true nature in short order and we will deal with it accordingly. Meanwhile, it's innocent until proven guilty. Set the Bar: Be Nice!

Original

[GirlyMan]

.....

[Violet]

Odd... was there no (non-staff) discussion of this? I'm just this side of the fence, of course... if it was ever discussed, can I have a link to the thread? (There is neither a link to it in the staff log or here)

[Jackalope]

Odd... was there no (non-staff) discussion of this? I'm just this side of the fence, of course... if it was ever discussed, can I have a link to the thread? (There is neither a link to it in the staff log or here)

There was not. It was a staff decision based on numerous examples of stepping over the line of existing Introduction forum rules.

[Whateverist]

It looks like this thread is available to vent or discuss the rule change if anyone wants. No objections here. Carry on.

[Jackalope]

It looks like this thread is available to vent or discuss the rule change if anyone wants. No objections here. Carry on.

Absolutely. Its not so much as a rule change as a change in enforcement. FWIW, we're not about to let people take refuge in Introductions - threads that wander into other topics will be split to the appropriate forum.

[Whateverist]

Naturally I immediately thought of a concern. I notice that occasionally there is a post in that forum which doesn't at all sound like an introduction. Recently there was a thread "wondering about religion in America". I wouldn't have recognized this as an introduction. If someone obnoxious posts here with no clue in the title or first paragraph, it might be more appropriate to move the thread than to hand out an automatic penalty to anyone who gets drawn in.

That's it. Not a big concern really.

[Losty]

Lol. I love you guys I really do. Sometimes though...lol nevermind.

[Violet]

There was not. It was a staff decision based on numerous examples of stepping over the line of existing Introduction forum rules.

Doesn't that strike you as kind of fascinating? Usually there's a right an proper uproar over these things.

Should I start one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=il03oM7bSc4

[Jackalope]

There was not. It was a staff decision based on numerous examples of stepping over the line of existing Introduction forum rules.

Doesn't that strike you as kind of fascinating? Usually there's a right an proper uproar over these things.

Honestly I expected some drama over it. I figured nobody read it.