The new rules

[Alonzo]

Please post your opinions and reactions to the new rules. If you support them, either some or all, say so. If you oppose them, either some or all, say so. I'd rather get it all out here than randomly throughout the site, as this way I can better understand the reaction and what, if anything, needs tweaking.

I want this to be a discussion, that doesn't mean there needs to be agreement.

Also if the complaint is simply about a single incident or a warning you were give then this is not the place to take up the issue, instead please pm me of that's the case. I want this to be about the new policies and rules themselves, as they apply to the forum as a whole, not about any single incident or single poster.

[Truth_and_Power]

Pardon me if I've been a hassle, I know it's probably been a lot of work lately. Good show.

[PatrickHenry]

I am fine with them.

We just need to encourage reportage of problem posts.

Then the warnings will take effect and we will all be sweet to each other. :love:

[AnnEsthesia]

My only problem has been getting points and having someone else get points for harassing each other when as far as I was aware, I was neither harassed or harassing anyone. But I guess harassment is in the eye of the reader.

[nevadamedic]

My only problem has been getting points and having someone else get points for harassing each other when as far as I was aware, I was neither harassed or harassing anyone. But I guess harassment is in the eye of the reader.


Perception is Reality.

[AnnEsthesia]

Indeed. Hence why I warned people about it. Better a warning from me than being surprised when points roll in.

[ECW]

New rules look fine to me. Hope you don't mind if I break one every now and then just to see if anyone is paying attention.

T&P: nice to see you are on the Impeachment bandwagon. Welcome aboard.

[nevadamedic]

New rules look fine to me. Hope you don't mind if I break one every now and then just to see if anyone is paying attention.

T&P: nice to see you are on the Impeachment bandwagon. Welcome aboard.


Every now and then? Knowing you it will be daily. :lmao:

[Pookie]

I don't have any problem with them at all. I just don't pay attention to who has how many warning points -- only mine LOL!
Good job. I like the changes.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Elrathin]

New Rules seem to be good so far. No complaints here.

[Alonzo]

Anyone have something negative to say about the rules?

[Pookie]

No. I don't.
Purrs,
Pookie

[cronic]

nope.. no negative...smilez

[Alonzo]

Maybe I'll get a different response this time. Does anyone have anything to say about the new rules?

[ECW]

They appear to be working in the fashion you intended.

[nevadamedic]

Anyone have something negative to say about the rules?


Give it some time, im sure December will bitch about them.

[Professor]

I assume you mean these new rules:

1. We are removing political affiliations. This may help reduce the partisanship a bit, by removing the constant reminder that affiliations give as to the viewpoint of your opponent, and for new members people won't even know what affiliation they hold. I'm trying to get the word "affiliation" removed, though I should be able to figure it out soon.

2. Warning % will once again be public. It seemed to work before when we had them public, and it shows to members, outside of staff, that problem people are being dealt with.

3. We will now use warning points for infractions as a general rule of thumb. Pm's can go with them, but warning will no longer be a last resort. The only exception will be off topic posting, which will likely only receive warning points if they are frequent.

4. More effectively enforce the ban on uncivil behavior by moving posts to FP.

5. When a post is reported we will send at least a short explanation to the reporter about the action taken, if any.

6. FP will be off limits to those under 100 posts. If someone can't debate civilly when they get here this probably isn't the place for them. This may take a day or two to enact as I'm trying to figure out how to set this restriction, though I know it can be done.

7. We are enacting a no harassment rule. And, in a significant change from the past, this will be enforced in fools paradise as well as in the main forum. The reason for this is that most harassment has occurred in FP once posts have been moved. Other behaviors in FP will still be unmoderated, but if we find there is harassment going on we will step in and put an end to it. Harassment will be dealt with more harshly than personal attacks, and consistent harassment may result in banning.

8. I have also changed the "racial slurs" rule to derogatory slurs, which cover words such as cu.nt, fa.g, ret.ard etc. that the term racial slurs did not.

__________________________________________________ ___

I have a few comments:

How do you differ harassment from personal attacks?

I'm not sure I like the lack of affiliation. Since I'm not here a lot, I still have to get used to it, but right now I don't like it. Couldn't we keep the labels and have people act like adults, which the majority of them already do?

[Alonzo]

How do you differ harassment from personal attacks?

I'm not sure I like the lack of affiliation. Since I'm not here a lot, I still have to get used to it, but right now I don't like it. Couldn't we keep the labels and have people act like adults, which the majority of them already do?

I removed the affiliation for two reasons. One is that, when dealing with newbies or newbies dealing with you, it will require them to actually know something, even something small, about the persons opinions and possibly reduce the immediate reliance on "You liberal!" or "you conservative!" type arguments.

The other reason is that it provides a constant reminder and, because it is right in your face, possibly increases the likelihood of resorting to such comments. It doesn't require any thought as the reminder is always there when debating someone.

How do you differ harassment from personal attacks?

Harassment is when a member is consistently singled out for attack, ridicule, or some other uncivil, non debate behavior. For example the situation with AD and viola, scorpion/anne/viola, labrocca/anne etc. those would be instances of harassment. Harassment is not just a couple of personal attacks against a member, or following someone to actually debate them.

It's something I don't expect to be used very often, but if I go after someone for harassment I will come down much harder than I would for just a personal attack.

[Professor]

Can you give a break down of the points system? You said you would be using warning points as a rule of thumb. How many points does each offense get. For example, being a pain in the assin this thread, how many points do I get? And how long does it take for it to go down to 0?

[Alonzo]

It drops a point a day I think.

Being a pain in the ass doesn't get warning points. If you haven't had issues with the staff in the past it's unlikely we'd be warning you now . It's not that we won't, just as it's not like we wouldn't have said something before, it's just that those that didn't have problems with their behavior before are unlikely to have them now.

As for the amount of warning points, I've told staff to keep it light for the most part. The times I've started hitting people harder so far are repeat offenders, especially repeat offenders who said they don't care and they'll do it again if they want.

Warnings generally have been in the 1-5 range. Most of the ones I've given out have been 1-3, with the exceptions being for ethnicity/religious based personal attacks and repeat offenders.

I can't say a specific amount because there isn't just one type of personal attack, one type of slur etc.

If I have to hit someone with harassment, which I haven't and I haven't come even close to it, expect 25-50%. I expect that to be very rare.

[Professor]

OK, I like it.

The only thing I'm still ify about is the lack of affiliation status. I understand why your doing it and I like the goals and reasoning. But I'm not sure I like the lack of it. :scared:

[Voluntary]

The only thing I'm still ify about is the lack of affiliation status. I understand why your doing it and I like the goals and reasoning. But I'm not sure I like the lack of it. :scared:


It is good. Argue the issues from your 'political philosophy', not the political philosophy itself. I can range from an anarchist (to most functions of the government) to a conservative (the Federal Reserve system).

If you want to put my political philosophy neatly into a box, then I am a classical liberal.

What are you scared of? Not being identified by a group?

[Professor]

What are you scared of? Not being identified by a group?


I don't know. I've never been big on change though. I'm still not used to the new banner.

Btw, can we display gender? Every now and then I'll read, "Yeah Professor....he" C'mon guys! It's SHE!

[AnnEsthesia]

Just put: "I'm a GIRL, you hoser!" as your custom title.

[Professor]

Just put: "I'm a GIRL, you hoser!" as your custom title.


Done.

[AnnEsthesia]

Heh! Way cool.

[Alonzo]

What are you scared of? Not being identified by a group?


I don't know. I've never been big on change though. I'm still not used to the new banner.

Btw, can we display gender? Every now and then I'll read, "Yeah Professor....he" C'mon guys! It's SHE!


Don't worry, some members keep calling me a "she" so you're not alone.

[AnnEsthesia]

It is your cologne Zo. You need something with more musk.

[Scribbler1]

Just put: "I'm a GIRL, you hoser!" as your custom title.


Done.
It won't matter much. Your custom title doesn't appear when you are quoted, and that's what most people look at.