|
819. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 10:35:27 AM Indy:
It appears to me from the little experience I have working with community leaders that there is too much of what Niner would call "rank democracy." Everyone sees wabbit as ruling by decree, whereas wabbit sees herself as needing a consensus before acting.
The actual situation is similar to a judge, who hears arguments on all sides, and then makes a ruling. In wabbit's case, she often assesses the general feeling as well, and if there is consensus on an issue.
It would be nice, however, if we could limit those arguments at times to a post or two. Nothing is more depressing than a debate which goes on endlessly and pointlessly over obscure fine points.
I like the way we have arranged threads with individual hosts and policies. And I like your reply to Kuligin. It is very much in the spirit of things around here. 820. wabbit - 2/21/2000 10:38:38 AM Indy,
It isn't that I am looking for consensus; rather I am looking to enforce the existing RoE as best I can, more or less by my own interpretation of the RoE. I suspect I am more lenient than many would like in that interpretation, and not lenient enough for some. I don't expect to please everyone and frankly, pleasing everyone isn't my concern. 821. Seguine - 2/21/2000 10:41:22 AM CalGal, you persist in wanting to define the violation I propose in terms of abuse OR privacy violation. Let me state the proposal again:
Personal information may not be used to attack, harass, insult, or abuse.
You will notice that the prohibition lies at the intersection of addressing privacy and abuse, being concerned neither with one more than the other. It leaves all sorts of other varieties of attack, harassment, and abuse for you to worry about the unenforceability of. It does not require the moderator to concern herself with whether the info has ever, anywhere been disclosed by the person being attacked/harassed etc.
I am advocating making precisely one kind of abuse/insult/attack CLEARLY prohibited, and I am NOT contesting that IDs be considered inviolate. It shouldn't be hard to implement, and it should reassure newcomers that inadvertent disclosures won't be brought up 6 months down the line.
822. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 10:47:04 AM Rule 1) Respect the privacy of other Motiers within the Mote
Privacy is important to many people here, for many different reasons. Please do not post any personal information about any poster without the express consent of that poster. Personal information consists of any information, explicit or deducible, about any poster which has not been explicitly mentioned within the confines of the Mote by that poster. References to personal information will be deleted by the thread host in all cases and the poster's ID may be suspended at the decision of the moderator and the offended party (both of whom must be in agreement for suspension to occur).
Rule 2) Respect other Motiers' feelings Gratuitous personal attacks do little to further the forum and the discussions taking place within it. Please refrain from personal abuse of other Motiers. Posts which are unduly abusive, but still have valuable content, will at the host's decision be moved to the Inferno. The thread host will post to indicate what posts she/he has moved. Posts which are abusive and deemed without content by the host will be deleted. The author of any abusive post is subject, by the moderator's decision, to be suspended, and repetitive abusive posts will assuredly result in suspension. Rule 3)Respect the wishes of the Thread Hosts The thread hosts are volunteers chosen by the Moderator to further discussion and to moderate the tone of their own thread. Participants in any thread must accede to the wishes of the thread host regarding their behavior within the thread. The final judge of a thread host's decisions and behavior, and of the behavior of any Motier, is the Moderator, who possesses flexible executive power over the function of the Mote. If you have a complaint about a host's behavior, email the host and/or the Moderator. Any Motier may exercise fair comment about a Thread Host in the Policy Thread, sparingly as needed.
823. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 10:47:59 AM Rule 4) Do Not Spam the Mote Most Motiers do not appreciate wading through reams of meaningless posts to follow a discussion. Please do not post advertisements or link sites which are not germane to the discussion. Please do not clutter the threads with off-topic posts. Do not directly paste images that may be offensive directly into the thread. Such posts will be removed at the decision of the thread host or Moderator, and repeated postings of this sort may result in suspension at the Moderator's decision. Rule 5)Respect the Laws of Free Speech The Mote aims at fostering free speech wherever possible, but unfortunately some sacrifices must be made in order for an online debate forum to function well. Please do not threaten any Motier with real-life consequences stemming from dialogue taking place within the Mote. Avoid making any posts which would subject the forum or the poster to legal action. These posts will be removed by the thread host or the moderator, and the poster will likely be banned from the forum at the decision of the Moderator. Rule 6) Respect the Wishes of the Moderator The Moderator, and Mote Staff, are all volunteers who donate a lot of their valuable time and effort to the maintenance and improvement of this forum. The Moderator, and Mote Staff, are all subject to the Rules of Engagement, but the Moderator otherwise wields total power within the Mote. What the Moderator rules may be fairly commented upon in Mote Policies, but all Motiers are subject to the rulings of the Moderator. The Moderator may grant limited or full power to other Staff members to act in conjunction with, or in the absence of, the Moderator or a Thread Host. These persons's actions are subject to the decision of the Moderator, and otherwise they are to be treated as Moderators. 824. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 10:51:11 AM Just because Irving asked. 825. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 10:53:25 AM Errata for rule 1):
Any Motier has the right to ask that any private information relating to them not be mentioned by anyone. Any Motier has the right to allow any and all Motiers to use any of their personal information as they see fit. 826. Seguine - 2/21/2000 10:55:22 AM My last was a response specifically to this:
"I don't see how it can be considered exploitation if the information was provided online and directly associated with the individual in question. I see no way for Wabbit to enforce this other than to determine if the post itself is abusive."
It doesn't have to qualify as "exploitation", any more than my disclosure of your id needed to be malevolent in any way for it to be prohibited. A disclosure need simply be against the rules. "Abuse" need not be determined by the moderator; "insult" or "attack" would suffice, which is why those words were included in my proposal. I'm confident Wabbit, as well as most of the hosts, are perfectly capable of noticing such things. The rule is not remotely unenforceable. 827. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 11:15:00 AM No debate? Good, then, the motion carries (whack). Anything else? Moving right along.... 828. Angel-Five - 2/21/2000 11:26:30 AM Next on the agenda, the big marble 'The Mote' banner with the giant stuffed olive in the corner. There is no question that it has to be removed, post haste. I suggest something slightly more attractive, like a large neon sign which reads The Mote, Home of Angel-Five And His Endless Supply Of Good Ideas in all its dazzling truth. Or in honor of the departed PE we could name it'The Sacrament'. and have a few dancing nun gifs in the banner. 829. Indiana Jones - 2/21/2000 11:44:45 AM Irv: Agreed.
wabbit: I have no problem with the job you've done. And your post is exactly my point: you don't need to worry about pleasing everyone, and the few permanent harpies should just get over it or drink large quantities of hemlock. 830. Seguine - 2/21/2000 12:02:04 PM A-5's Rules are toooooo lonnnnnngg, and far too cautious (the requests that offensiveness be avoided--goodness gracious), but I could go along with some sort of dancing thing or other in the banner. Pace the memory of PE, Nuns seems a little tame. What about that photo of Pelle and the buzz saw? 831. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 7:08:29 PM Wow, talk about ask and ye shall receive. I'm impressed that both A5 and Seguine have offered their versions of what the RoE should say, and I think it's a good start for discussing a revision.
My feedback follows. I am only one voice, and I'm very interested in seeing what others think.
Seguine:
Personal information may not be used to attack, harass, insult, or abuse.
I think this is what we want to say, and is certainly what we mean, but may be a bit unclear to those who haven't had the background of the issues. I think it needs a bit of definition, but I admire the succinctness. I'm a great fan of succinctness.
Which brings me to:
A5:
You know I admire you, old friend, but among your many sterling qualities, succinctness is one I rarely see listed.
I like the way you've organized the rules, and I think the points you mention are very good for both regulars and newbies to read. But I feel (and I say this with the utmost respect and appreciation) that they can be edited down to about half their length. In fact, I'd be willing to give it a shot, if others are in favor of using these rules as a basis.
I do have one quibble with one of the statements you made:
References to personal information will be deleted by the thread host in all cases and the poster's ID may be suspended at the decision of the moderator and the offended party (both of whom must be in agreement for suspension to occur).
Based upon my experience at the old place, I believe that requiring an offended party's official protest is unfair to the offended party. The rules should be applied at the discretion of the Moderator, and should not require any participation from an offended party.
[continued] 832. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/21/2000 7:12:29 PM If an offended party's protest is required, then the offending party will be aware that the offended party has protested (or at the very least agreed to the punishment). This leaves the offended party open to possible further abuse and may cause offended parties to allow things to pass which they are extremely uncomfortable with.
Leave the offended party out of it altogether. The Moderator is a good enough judge of what violates the spirit of the rule and what doesn't.
One other comment:
Since we do not all agree on a single term for participants of this forum, I recommend using "participant" instead of "Motier." 833. joezan - 2/21/2000 7:24:54 PM
At this sad juncture, "Fellow Sufferer" would a much more apt term. 834. joezan - 2/21/2000 7:25:43 PM
...would be... 835. PelleNilsson - 2/21/2000 8:13:54 PM I wonder how many Motiers have actually read the RoE. A minority I suspect.
Which does not mean that they are not needed, I hasten to add. But we cannot aspire to cover all eventualities and the more rules there are the more quabbles there will be about whether they have been trespassed in some individual case. Sometimes I think that something like this would be enough:
The Mote is a forum that sets great value on privacy and integrity and frowns upon abusive, obscene or threatening language, and boorish insults. I you adhere to these simple guidelines you are welcome. If not, your posts will be deleted, and you may be suspended or banned. Do not try to "test the limits". There is very little patience with that sort of thing.
Somebody is harping about "different rules for different people". Of course there will be difference, not least because the degree of offense is in the eye of the beholder. If somebody says "Pelle is just a stupid Swede who doesn't know shit", my sense of outrage (if any) will clearly depend on who said it.
Likewise, if a Motier, who is known as a decent person, makes a mistake of whatever nature, he or she will be judged differently than somebody who always dances on border of the forbidden.
I think it useless to think about some kind of abstract justice that is applied equally to all. The same somebody also complains that there is no accountability at the Mote. In a sense that is right. This is our forum. We are not accountable to anybody but ourselves and we know what kind of place we want. And to be included in the "we" it is not necessary to be brilliant or witty or erudite. But there must be some basic loyalty to the forum. We are here because we like to exchange ideas and jokes and to learn from each other. Why should we waste our time on somebody who is out to disrupt? And even more importantly: why should we feel any obligation to waste our time?
836. PelleNilsson - 2/21/2000 8:14:23 PM The above became a bit meandering. Sorry. 837. CalGal - 2/21/2000 10:34:24 PM
1) I see no difference between this rule and the one that exists now, apart from the information that the post will be deleted. That can be added simply enough.
2) This isn't a rule. It's a wish and a procedure for what will happen if someone is abusive. I also concur with Seguine--I don't think the rule is desirable at all. Certainly not as written. I think Rule 2 in the current RoE is clearer, quite frankly.
3) This isn't a rule. No one really has to abide by the threadhost. The threadhost can delete any posts that he or she wants. The fact that the thread host owns the thread isn't a rule--it's a fact.
4) This is a rule, but it is awfully limited, and is covered by "abuse", in the existing rules. I'm not convinced it needs to be broken out like that.
5) This is nothing more than a wordier version of the existing rule 3, wrapped in a "free speech" banner. And I really don't think we want to mention "free speech" in our RoE anyway, since we allow deletions of posts for any reason.
6) Like 3, it's not a rule. 838. CalGal - 2/21/2000 11:01:16 PM I really don't think the RoE should be a doctrine or a constitution. It's a set of rules. I think it is best that they be as loose as possible. The current rules involve: - Privacy
- Abuse
- Threats
- Advertising
Angel's rules are: - Privacy
- Respect others
- Listen to the thread host
- Don't spam
- Respect Free speech and don't make threats
- Listen to the forum moderator.
So he's left out the advertising rule and added a spam rule. The privacy rules are fundamentally the same. He's created two new "rules". And he's redefined two existing rules--abuse (respect the feelings of others) and threats (respect the rules of free speech).
|
