New Rules (Member Review)

[Tiberius]

For the past month or so, the staff have been rewriting the rules, adding a few new ones and removing ambiguities from the current ones. Now we'd like to release the new document for a member review. We feel that such a large change to the rules should be open for comments / suggestions / questions, so this is your chance.

The new rules can be read here: https://atheistforums.org/rules2.php

Changes include but are not limited to:

• Merging of the "This is a discussion forum" rule into the "Spamming" rule.
  
• Splitting the "No Flaming" rule into rules covering "Flaming" and "Threats" independently.
  
• New rule concerning "doxing" (the revealing of personally identifying information about a person).
  
• Merging "Disrupting Forum Activity", "Member Access", and "Uploading Files" into one rule "Disrupting Forum Functionality".
  
• New rule concerning the posting of graphic content.
  
• New rule concerning putting restrictions on thread participation.
  
• New rule concerning the creation of posts using Unicode characters which don't appear in the Basic Latin Unicode block.
  
• A new section which highlights are minor protection policy.
  
• A new section which details the types of punishment we have.
  
• A new section describing the staff roles.
  
• A new section linking to our privacy policy.
  

You will also find that most if not all rules have been rewritten with updated language.

Any comments etc. are welcome in this thread.

[Longhorn]

Reads much clearer, and there's less if any ambiguity. I like that the process of reporting posts is explained

[brewer]

Looks really good. The following popped into my head:

Appeal Process for Punishments: What can and can't be appealed (thinking primarily of bans) or should not be appealed, how to appeal (specifically if banned how do you submit an appeal), what to include in the appeal (could be simple like anything you feel supports/defends your appeal position, can't just say "I want to appeal" with no reason/justification), and anything else you can think of regarding the appeal process (i.e. 1st appeal, 2nd appeal, .......). Sigh, to much time dealing with employees and HR.

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.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Oh, effing GREAT.  A username rule, just as I was about to change mine to xkzlftlpm'['].

Boru

[SteelCurtain]

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.

Protecting Rule Breakers
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.

(Bold mine)

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.

[brewer]

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.

Protecting Rule Breakers
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.

(Bold mine)

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.

Understood.

[Mystical]

Hard work, all that. Good job Sir Tibs!

[vorlon13]

Some boards I post on have explicit rules about 'not starting a war' with another message board.  Usually, the rule is implemented via simply not allowing any direct mention of another message board in a posting.  Members can use euphemisms for other sites (like 'Auction site' instead of 'Ebay') and are allowed to directly name in the PM system.

If this has never been a problem here, I could see not having a rule posted, but maybe having one 'at the ready' or just being aware such things might occur would suffice.

Also, on another topic, I appreciate the inherent honesty of specifically noting the PM system is monitored.  Another site I post on makes a big deal of stating their PM system is 'inviolate'.  Of course, since mere humans are running that board, it didn't take long for me to note that information that could only be gleaned from a PM I had sent was common knowledge among the mods there.  LOL, I extracted a frightful vengeance on them (undetected and untraceable), and have never assumed a PM system was 'inviolate' again.

[Pyrrho]

Some boards I post on have explicit rules about 'not starting a war' with another message board.  Usually, the rule is implemented via simply not allowing any direct mention of another message board in a posting.  Members can use euphemisms for other sites (like 'Auction site' instead of 'Ebay') and are allowed to directly name in the PM system.

If this has never been a problem here, I could see not having a rule posted, but maybe having one 'at the ready' or just being aware such things might occur would suffice.

Also, on another topic, I appreciate the inherent honesty of specifically noting the PM system is monitored.  Another site I post on makes a big deal of stating their PM system is 'inviolate'.  Of course, since mere humans are running that board, it didn't take long for me to note that information that could only be gleaned from a PM I had sent was common knowledge among the mods there.  LOL, I extracted a frightful vengeance on them (undetected and untraceable), and have never assumed a PM system was 'inviolate' again.

Nothing online is inviolate.

[ignoramus]

are we still good with the poo talk but?