Make Atheist Forums Great Again (Part 1)

[unsapien]

A few weeks ago we asked the membership for suggestions to improve the forums. The staff have been going through each and every suggestion, discussing them to determine whether they can be implemented, and whether they should be.

We have made several decisions so far, but instead of implementing them immediately and all at once, we are going to make a series of announcements for the changes so we can answer any questions regarding them, and so members are prepared. In addition, the changes will be implemented on January 1st, 2019.

Today I want to announce two changes. The first is a new rule regarding thread subjects, which can be read below:

Thread Subjects

Thread subjects / titles should be relevant to the first post, be free of slurs, and refrain from using sexually explicit language.

This rule does not apply in R'lyeh.
This rule does apply in Area 69, though use of sexually explicit language is allowed.

Please feel free to ask about any of the changes. Once again, a reminder that this is the first post in a series, there will be more to come, and unless otherwise stated, the changes will not be implemented until 2019.

- AF Staff

First...Holy Fucktard that's a lot of posts unrelated to the OP to read through looking to find the relevant posts. I know I don't have the power but...NEW RULE: Next person that starts a post in this thread with "this is my last post on the matter/subject" should get a 1 week "vacation" ban.

Now I wasn't here for the whole "whatever started this mess", and I'm not going searching for it, for this one instance ignorance truly is bliss.

So I'm going to deal with the rule at hand. I agree with this rule, the main reason for me is that I do most of my reading at work (and responding at home) so if there's profanity or sexual references in the thread title I won't be able to read it because my work filters that stuff out, and they record attempts by employees to access certain stuff, and...uh..."pleasuring themselves" (cause it's happened more then once).

Anyway, three things that I've seen mentioned as issues are: 1) There is a rule that already covers this; 2) Freedom of speech issues; and 3) Lack of enforcement of the rules, and/or inconsistent enforcement.

So I'll take these in turn.

1) There is a rule that does generally cover this, but not thread titles specifically. Why this new rule? I'm not sure, but clearly there was some sort of issue with thread titles that arose. I'm thinking about it this way. In most countries since cars were invented there has been a rule about distracted/reckless/careless driving to cover everything like reading the newspaper, putting on make-up, shaving...etc... while driving. But even so, in the last few years with the growing problem of texting and driving on cellphones, most countries have had to invoke harder rules & bigger penalties specifically  for this type of behaviour because it became such a prevalent problem. That's where I think this rule is coming from.

2) Freedom of speech is as important to me as I think most everyone here, but like I think about most things, there are no absolutes, and free speech does not mean free of consequences. This site is privately owned and operated, ultimately the owners are responsible for what we do here, and I think we have to respect that. Everybody self censors themselves, because we have too , to survive...everybody ask yourself about your day today, you have freedom of speech right? How many times have you wanted to lash out at your spouse, your boss, a customer, the little old lady paying a $20 grocery bill at checkout with coins, or the little kid that won't shut the F***-up?...but you didn't, why?

3) I would note that the type of suggested enforcement for this rule has not really been raised, even though it seems to have been an issue...a bit here... and a lot in the thread that seems to have vomited itself onto AD.org's brand new carpets. This is my suggestion:

Example 1) I post a thread titled: Both the libtards & the republicunts are fucking stupid.

If the thread's OP is just ranting BS, then just delete it and give the member a warning level.

If it turns out that in the OP there seems to be some redeeming argument then, I would give the member a warning level for the offence but this is what I'd do to the thread title:

Both the (Liberals) & the (Republicans) are (acting stupidly)

The point being that if the speech is altered from the original, then I just want to see that it has been altered or censored.

Example 2) If the thread titled: Look at these sweet chocolates... (inspired by Vera's thread in AD, I love you Vera but...holy crap!)

Then (which happened) you click on the thread and see a picture of a chocolate ANUS! ...at work! You quickly have to close the browser and delete the history, hoping that nobody saw it. In this particular case an alteration to the thread title (again the alteration being made obvious) I think would be:

Look at these sweet chocolates... (this thread is not considered workplace safe)

Anyway, those are my OP relevant ,and hopefully constructive thoughts.