|
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.
845. PincherMartin - 2/21/2000 11:53:10 PM 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.
I can be fair to Seguine and Angel. Can you?
846. CalGal - 2/21/2000 11:53:52 PM I told Seguine and Angel that they should see if there is a consensus for change out there. Barring that, I think we should leave things alone.
The thread has been on the front page for a while, people have been invited in the Policies thread, and there is no demand for a change and considerable crankiness about the discussion at all. Can we decide to leave things alone? 847. CalGal - 2/21/2000 11:55:39 PM Pincher,
If you, too, are going to make this about me, take it to the Inferno. I have had well more than enough of this shit. 848. PincherMartin - 2/21/2000 11:58:27 PM 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?
Excuse me, but I think that Irv is a civilian just like the rest of us now. His permission was not necessary for a discussion to begin on this subject. I did not seek his (or your) permission to say that I objected to this debate. Angel and Seguine did not need his okay to begin this discussion nor will they need his okay to end it. Perhaps if you stop talking as if you're in charge or even know what the hell you're talking about, people would not get any misconceptions about the way things are run here. 849. CalGal - 2/22/2000 12:04:54 AM Excuse me, but I think that Irv is a civilian just like the rest of us now.
Where did I imply otherwise? Irv, if you saw it as an accusation, I apologize. I do think your voice carries extra weight, but I could just as easily have said "any Mote member".
What I was asking is this: given that some people are upset that the subject has even come up, how do we move from complaints to determining if there is a need for action? It doesn't matter who tells them to go ahead and post their ideas. But are we bound to go through this any time someone wants to change?
As for the rest, Pincher--like I said, take it elsewhere. 850. Seguine - 2/22/2000 12:11:04 AM A proposal:
The Mote is a not-for-profit discussion forum hosted and run by member volunteers. Membership is free. Commercial solicitations and spam are not permitted.
Strenuous argument is acceptable in this forum. However, certain important rules govern the exchange of personal information and private information:
851. Seguine - 2/22/2000 12:11:40 AM 1. Any personal information you reveal about others, whether certain or speculative, intentionally or unintentionally disclosed, previously revealed or not, obtained online, in correspondence, or elsewhere, is potentially an offense. Posts that reveal others’ personal information may be summarily deleted by the thread hosts or the forum moderator, at management’s discretion. If you use others' personal information, whether you believe it is private or not, to harass, abuse, insult, or threaten, your remarks will be deleted and you will be denied access to this site, either temporarily or permanently, at the forum managers' discretion.
Do not call attention to others' accidental disclosures, or repeat accidentally disclosed private information. If you inadvertently reveal information that you realize later may have been private, email the immediately and ask that your post be deleted.
2. Threats, and revelation of real names, addresses, phone numbers, places of employment, ISP email addresses, or other such information as may put a forum participant at risk for unwanted contact, are expressly forbidden. Violation of this rule will result in denial of access to the site.
In any dispute concerning an offense, the forum manager(s) decisions are final. By participating in this forum, you agree to abide by the Rules of Engagement, which may be revised from time to time. In the event of revisions to this agreement, registered members of the forum will be notified in advance by email. Members’ input conerning revisions is welcomed, but decisions concerning these guidelines and other matters pertaining to the forum or its governance will be implemented solely at the forum management’s discretion.
852. PsychProf - 2/22/2000 12:17:53 AM Seguine...Message # 850 concise and informative.
853. Seguine - 2/22/2000 12:18:08 AM [End]
Erratum: "If you inadvertently reveal information that you realize later may have been private, email the forum moderator immediately and ask that your post be deleted."
"Forum manager" should be a link to Wabbit.
In addition, there should be FAQ link at the bottom of the RoE. Transparency should be part of its objective, for greater transparency will help counter the impression that the Mote is inbred, run by a cabal, etc.
Some questions that should be adressed in the FAQ:
Q. Who runs the Mote? [A. As of [date], the following individuals perform the duties described here and may be contacted via the Moderator: [list]]
Q. What's the definition of "personal", definition of "private"?
Q. Copyright issues?
Q. How did the Mote come into existence? [provide history, mention Fray]
Q. How do I propose a policy change?
854. PincherMartin - 2/22/2000 12:18:12 AM CalGal --
I'm discussing Mote Policy, and your distorted interpretations of it, so I'll keep it right here. If you don't like it, tough shit. 855. Seguine - 2/22/2000 12:19:10 AM Soory; forum moderator should be a link to Wabbit. 856. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/22/2000 12:20:05 AM CalGal:
I asked people to give their suggestions for three reasons:
1) I was getting very tired of the discussion dwelling on how the original rules were formulated and I wanted to move things forward.
2) I was very interested in the input others had to offer. I found A5's and Seguine's proposals productive. They obviously care about our community and their proposals are worth discussing.
If we decide in the end to leave things unchanged, it will make the rules more meaningful for being discussed.
3) It is apparent that some people feel they didn't have a chance to provide input when the rules were formulated. I firmly believe there's nothing wrong with letting them add their opinions and proposals now, and revisiting the rules.
Their proposals were not an attack on the rules as they now stand, but were an attempt to stimulate discussion in areas they feel strongly about.
You feel the rules don't need changing. They feel they do. What's wrong with discussing it? You've made your point. Let others make theirs. Once again, if the end result is we don't change the rules, it will be a good thing to have them reaffirmed. If the consensus is that they need changing or fine-tuning, that too would be a good thing.
The community can't lose if we stick to revisiting the RoE and keep individual personalities out of it.
There's no reason my voice carries extra weight. I am just one voice here. I do have a little experience in this area, which merely means I can sometimes offer an angle others can't. But that's all.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
