Forum Rules Revision Request for CommentFollow

The forum rules are up for their approximatly 1 year review. There are several proposed changes, outlined in red in the following document:

http://www.allakhazam.com/DraftRFCForumRules.html

During this time period, the existing forum rules remain in force.

Please take this oppertunity to discuss existing rules, propose changes, removals, modifications or other rule related issues in this thread. Off topic posts will be nuked.

There is one other additional proposed rule that is not on the document above at this time, but we would like user feedback on the possibility:



I have seperated that one specifically because we are still debating that one amongst ourselves as well.

This comment period will run for approximatly 1 week. The yearly review period is intended to foster awareness of the rules and make it easier to get all changes finished at one time. You can feel free to submit change ideas the rest of the year as well.

Thank you
Administrator Kaolian

As a new member, I don’t know the history of the changes proposed, but two things occurred to me on reading them:

1) On the policy regarding harassment of members children – in Human Resources when considering charges of employee harassment there are two basic standards that can be applied. The first is for those actions which are so egregious and obviously objectionable that any reasonable person would know they are wrong. Such actions require administrative action regardless of whether the offended person has objected or not.

The second is for actions which the target finds offensive, but which another person might take as “just kidding”. In these cases, prior to taking action on a complaint, HR asks “did you tell the person that you were offended and ask them to stop?.” Ignoring a request to cease offensive behavior is taken as evidence of intent to harass.

Not knowing what behavior initiated this policy change, I don’t know if the following addition would be appropriate, but I offer it for consideration.

“There is a general exception allowed for good natured statements made in jest, that are recognized to be in jest by both parties, however in a dispute we will rule against the party who originates the statement, and evidence that a request from the offended party to cease such comments has been ignored will be viewed as a deliberate intent to harass.”

2) On amendment 5, It seems to me that this section is addressing two separate issues – that of discussion of specific administrative action, and that of general policy discussion.

Having participated in many on-line forums and discussion groups, I would agree that discussion on the forum of specific administrative action serves little purpose, beyond providing an opportunity to whine. The fact that 42 other whiners agree that you got a raw deal, and 28 “uptight jerks” think you got what you deserved means nothing and does not advance the purpose of the board in any way. (Can you tell which side I’m usually on? – LOL) This is not a democracy, if you feel a ruling was wrong you appeal through channels, not to the board population in general.

On the other hand, this is a community. There are times when a general discussion of a policy may be appropriate and even beneficial. Members can help newcomers understand the reasons for some policies, and discuss perceived need for new policies, and possible out-dated policies – in a general context, not case specific. A concern about an administrative action can be addressed in a general manner, without getting into specifics of a case.

Suggested language – Something like this:
No discussion of specific administrative actions or status is allowed on the forums. All such discussions will be removed. Discussions regarding administrator action must be conducted via PM or E-mail.

Discussion of policies is allowed in appropriate topics, and should be couched in a general, constructive, non-case-specific manner. While it is understood that a general discussion may involve use of specific examples by way of illustration, policy discussions which stray too far from this guideline will be locked or removed.

Administrators may from time to time post topics about specific actions which impact many users or which have become “hot discussions” among users, to explain (or retract) an action, or invite discussion about the policy involved. Such posts will indicate whether discussion is invited and the type of input solicited.

Cheers
________________________________________________
elarn - borean tundra

I think it's supposed to be more along the lines of "Man your kids are really ****** up" vs "Man my kid is such an hero" though, so that doesn't quite fit...it's more a matter of "Do we prohibit this sort of behavior to protect the thin-skinned or should they just grow a pair?"

On point 5, I don't know...I don't particularly find it necessary, but overall I guess I'd be okay with it as long as we really are still allowed to ask about wtf happened, and can regurgitate that to others as appropriate.

Something else along these lines that I wouldn't mind seeing is to have any thread that gets locked as opposed to nuked actually gets an administrator to post in the thread (or at least note the OP, since the OP shows the admin hit it) with at least a basic reasoning for the action(s), hell can even quote the rule(s) being violated if you don't want to actually explain the logic behind it. Can't do that with a nuked thread obviously and I wouldn't expect any kind of trackable "history" for that stuff, but as long as we still have lines to the admins to understand what was wrong I think it's passable.

seems pointless to me. if the actual content of such discussions is the stuff of PMs (eg "i told kaolian about it, but he ignored me. he must think that blablabla") posters can be muted or threads locked. general discussion of admin actions doesn't seem bad even in specific game/job/server forums though... i'd imagine mods can use discretion and lock/mute whatever is actually objectionable. that rule paints with way too broad a brush.