|
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).
839. CalGal - 2/21/2000 11:02:04 PM So the first question is, do we need any more rules than the existing four? Do we need a rule on spamming? Do we need a "rule" on thread hosts and moderators?
I'm open to a rule on spamming, but it seems to me this is easily covered by the existing abuse rule. I do think it's nice to have a rule on advertising, just to cover it. Neither is necessary, both are fine.
I think the "rules" about thread hosts and moderators are not only unnecessary, but a bad idea. It's not a "rule" to follow the thread hosts orders, it's just that if you don't follow the rules of the forum, they can delete your posts. So I think a description of their abilities is a more appropriate way of handling this than making a rule about it. The FAQ, which hasn't been put on the page yet (it's not done), is a better place to handle that, I think.
Second question is, should "abuse" and "threats" be redefined as "respect the feelings of others" and "respect the rules of free speech"?
My preference is that we don't. "Respect Others Feelings" means that an element is left up to the member involved. "Abuse" leaves that an open issue. I prefer that it be left open. I don't think any forum moderator needs more folks who complain when someone hurts their feelings. Besides, I just don't think we're that type of forum. I think we are generally a civil place, with a bunch of people who can be irritating on occasion. A rule like this will get all sorts of people upset because it will appear that Wabbit doesn't care that their feelings are hurt. Alternately, it gives Wabbit a lot more work.
I've already mentioned my concerns with using the term "free speech". We mean "don't make threats" so let's just say that.
840. Indiana Jones - 2/21/2000 11:16:56 PM The "hurt feelings" rule is a bad idea. TableTalk has such a rule (including even the word "gratuitous"), and it causes no end of grief.
The existing framework is very liberal, and wabbit's benign enforcement of it makes it even more so. As a result, this community is mostly what it's participants make of it. You don't like how a moderator runs a particular thread, quit posting there. You don't like the way some people talk, quit frequenting those threads. If you hate the whole thing, go somewhere else.
Other posters can do very little to you unless you let them. Hence, the argument that a person's rights extend until they affect another person's is pretty persuasive.
Obviously, spamming and using RL info or making RL threats run afoul of this. Sufficient spamming does infringe upon the rights of others to be able to carry on a conversation. RL info can be used to intimidate exercise of poster rights.
I see the social contract of the Mote as being: "This community gives you a venue to communicate openly and honestly without fear of RL consequences. In return, you promise to give all community members the same right." Breaking that social contract should result in expulsion from the society.
All else is a day-to-day negotiation. 841. PincherMartin - 2/21/2000 11:35:56 PM Do you think the Founding Fathers spent this much time on the Constitution before ratifying it?
Really, people. In a small community like this, legalistic charters are a waste of time. Imagining that a well-written RoE can solve our problems and resolve debate on matters of banning, suspending, and the proper dose of insults in our forum is somewhat akin to believing in witchcraft or astrology. People here never read the same sentence in the same way, and with the multitude of lawyers (and lawyer-wanna bes) here -- which is our curse -- it's guaranteed they never will. The prose means nothing; application is everything.
Pelle is right. People don't read these fucking documents anyway. End this silly talk.
Indiana is right. When asked how judgements are made here, the top creme should say by "caprice and whim," and then say no more. After this answer is given a few times, everyone will go back to their conversations for good. 842. DanDillon - 2/21/2000 11:42:24 PM This is a debate simply not worth having. Like everything else these days, we're cannibalizing ourselves, and frankly, it's unattractive.
843. CalGal - 2/21/2000 11:47:10 PM When asked how judgements are made here, the top creme should say by "caprice and whim," and then say no more.
Well, in fairness, that's what the RoE says now. I think honesty is the best policy.
And to be fair to Angel and Seguine, Irv invited them to put a proposal on the table. I didn't agree, since I think there first needs to be agreement that a change is necessary. I don't think any such consensus exists.
844. CalGal - 2/21/2000 11:50:46 PM And yes, I don't think this is attractive and I also think it is misleading. It's not like there's an actual rebellion. There are only two people who object to the current rules (at least there are only two people who are saying so), and I frankly dislike feeling like justification is necessary.
At the same time, if Irv welcomes someone to put out a new policy for inspection--even if one isn't necessarily desired--what is to be done except discuss it? If we don't discuss it, Angel could then argue that silence = agreement. In my case, I don't agree.
|
