Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: August 8, 2022, 8:33 am

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New Rules (Member Review)
#1
New Rules (Member Review)
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.
Reply
#2
RE: New Rules (Member Review)
Reads much clearer, and there's less if any ambiguity. I like that the process of reporting posts is explained
Reply
#3
RE: New Rules (Member Review)
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.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem




Reply
#4
RE: New Rules (Member Review)
Oh, effing GREAT.  A username rule, just as I was about to change mine to xkzlftlpm'['].

Boru
‘Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.’ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Reply
#5
RE: New Rules (Member Review)
(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
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.
"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!<---
Reply
#6
RE: New Rules (Member Review)
(August 7, 2015 at 6:34 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:
(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
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.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem




Reply
#7
RE: New Rules (Member Review)
Hard work, all that. Good job Sir Tibs! Smile Clap
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!

Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite.

Dead wrong.  The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.

Quote:Some people deserve hell.

I say again:  No exceptions.  Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it.  As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.

[Image: tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif]
Reply
#8
RE: New Rules (Member Review)
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.


Panic
 The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it. 




Reply
#9
RE: New Rules (Member Review)
(August 7, 2015 at 8:20 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: 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.


Panic


Nothing online is inviolate.

"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Reply
#10
RE: New Rules (Member Review)
are we still good with the poo talk but?
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Member Awards 2017 - Results Tiberius 64 7796 January 30, 2018 at 1:44 pm
Last Post: Cyberman
  Member Awards 2017! Tiberius 164 19639 January 26, 2018 at 7:07 pm
Last Post: Succubus
  Area 69 Rules Update Cyberman 34 4065 July 27, 2017 at 8:38 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Can you figure out The Rules? Tiberius 0 587 April 1, 2017 at 11:43 am
Last Post: Tiberius
  Member Awards 2016! Tiberius 237 18571 January 22, 2017 at 10:13 pm
Last Post: Rayaan
  Member Awards 2016 - Results Tiberius 87 8476 January 21, 2017 at 8:33 pm
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  Member Awards 2015 - Results Tiberius 141 12372 February 6, 2016 at 9:11 am
Last Post: Excited Penguin
  Member Awards 2015 Tiberius 521 41510 January 15, 2016 at 6:31 pm
Last Post: Joods
  Returning staff member: Evie Jackalope 27 6149 November 30, 2015 at 5:22 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  New Rules Tiberius 20 3800 September 3, 2015 at 8:05 pm
Last Post: ignoramus



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)