(August 7, 2015 at 4:03 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Protecting Rule Breakers: This one seems a little ambiguous. Not allowed? A member can be held accountable for anothers rule breaking by not reporting? What if the non offending member does not recognize the rule violation? I'm still relatively new here so my opinion may not have much impact. How about reporting suspected rule breakers is encouraged, or something to that effect. The down side to this may be increased reporting of petty issues.
OK, I'm done.
Rules2 Wrote:Protecting Rule Breakers(Bold mine)
Protecting members who break the rules is not allowed. We consider a member to have protected a rule breaker if the member was aware of the rule violation before staff became aware of it, and failed to report it to the staff within a reasonable amount of time. This rule does not apply in situations where the rule being violated affects publicly posted content such as posts, shouts, etc.
The only place it applies is when you are aware of a sock or a hacker or some other rules violation that isn't publicly posted content and do not notify staff. Members are encouraged to report posts and profiles of suspected rules breakers, but not obligated to.
"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!<---
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!<---
