Deciding on rules and guidelines

View previous topic View next topic Go down

default Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by melodiccolor on Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:20 pm

I noticed the discussion has started on another thread, but this is important enough to have its own thread.

So far, Aiden has suggested having a good demographic balance for moderators. I agree; power shouldn't be concentrated in too few hands. It needs to be shared.

Reb has suggested some strict guidelines that merrit some thought. It's a good place to begin the discussion.

"here's my first valid thought....i'm half awake, so maybe it's only half valid:

if any post appears to be a personal attack on anyone-i mean anyone-else on this board or any other, it is deleted if posted, or deleted if not posted. a warning then goes to the poster. if you accumulate 5 warnings; you get 'banned' for a week. if you accumulate 10 warnings, you get banned for a month; 15 warnings, permanently banned.

i am disgusted with people mentioning each other's names/screen names/things they have said on other boards, implying someone is this or that...i have had too much of it, and it is anathema to me...

second maybe valid thought: if there is a to be a debate on any issue, then that debate should remain in the idea/theoretical area....iow, don't say 'you are stupid', say 'you're idea appears to not be fully thought through'....

i have no idea how any one moderator can make these decisions; i would suggest a voting process be set up, and votes taken of all registered members who will vote. for example, Waterdragon sez 'hey, Reb, you're a fucking ninny!' (lol! picking on you WD, cause i know you'd never say something like that except in jest, and likely not even then); if i object to the statement, i call for a vote. 'does this statement violate the 'no personal attacks' rule?'; people are given a week to vote. majority voting; if 10 say yes, and 9 say no, a warning is issued. democracy in action; majority rule (yes, i know, there isa tyranny of the majority sometimes....so, if you disagree with majority rule, then what's YOUR proposal?)

best i got....

oh, and another thing....there should be a rule that if you bring an issue from another board here, and criticize some person from another board, a vote is taken on should you get a warning. who's gonna keep track of the warnings? there should be a separate thread called 'warnings'; it names the date, quotes the post 'warned' and the screen name warned. should be protected against erasure, so the warnings can be counted in case of disagreement...

shutting up.
reb"


Last edited by melodiccolor on Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:22 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : adding quote)
avatar
melodiccolor
Admin

Posts : 11747
Join date : 2008-04-27
Location : The Land of Seriously Sombrerosy Wonky Stuff

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by Fossy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:55 pm

Also if you truly want it to be democracy the whole board should be voting on these things. I think that's what Rebel meant but I'm not sure.
avatar
Fossy

Posts : 285
Join date : 2008-04-27
Age : 36
Location : Philly suburbs, PA

View user profile http://www.myspace.com/freaklm

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by reb on Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:49 pm

and voting should be totally anonymous; if possible, so hidden not even a mod can see it; the server just tallies the votes and spits them out; should require user name and password to vote (a second time after logging in). this way no one can say 'x and y and z are ganging up on me; i'm gonna get them!' i don't know if htis is possible; if you have the right cmoputer design person, i bet it is. either way, the more insulation from retribution you can get, the more honest the votes will be....i don't like to vote on someone being a jerk; i imagine others don't like it either.

i'm still mulling this whole thing, but i got to take a nap shortly so i can go back to cutting cedar....

Smile
reb

reb

Posts : 1240
Join date : 2008-04-27
Age : 87
Location : next to the women on this board so they know where i'm at

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by melodiccolor on Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:53 pm

This method might work well as long as the forum remains small. The problems I see with it are twofold; many members might be here only occassionally and not really know what's going on, and two, eventually, the group might get to be too large for this to work, just too unwieldy. I do like the basic concept though. Maybe with some refinement?
avatar
melodiccolor
Admin

Posts : 11747
Join date : 2008-04-27
Location : The Land of Seriously Sombrerosy Wonky Stuff

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by reb on Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:50 am

if it is set up correctly, it will work with 500 people, should we get that large. typically, only 50% ever vote on anything controversial (look at elections)....i bet on something like 'so and so's a stinking lying jerk, and i can't stand him/her', you would only get 20% to vote, and mostly those would be people who would be following the thread.

refine away...im just tossing out raw ideas as they come to me....what's coming to me shortly is the rack...i'm beat again...
reb

reb

Posts : 1240
Join date : 2008-04-27
Age : 87
Location : next to the women on this board so they know where i'm at

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by adain on Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:50 am

I think Reb's warning system is good...and the voting system too.
His comments about raising things about other forums, and the people on them is extremely valid. Some of it has made me extremely uncomfortable...but some people also have had valid concerns. How do we sift out the down right nasty from the genuinely concerned, and be fair about it?
Even raising this issue is gonna annoy the crap out of some people...but it does need be sorted, because I guarantee ya it's probably the biggest reason we gonna lose people (and how many have disappeared because of it already?)
avatar
adain

Posts : 1005
Join date : 2008-04-28
Age : 106
Location : Lost in the nuclear waste lands of her mind.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by reb on Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:09 am

since i classify myself as a libertarian with some anarchistic leanings, i have faith in 'the common man' (and woman)....most people's radars are pretty good about what's nasty vs. what's sarcastic vs. what was innocent. if not, we'd have to go back to the drawing board. for me, the idea of one or a few people deciding 'what is over the line' is not a good one...i really have faith in honest, anonymous voting (although there is that thing of voting being skewed by people who manipulate and electronic system-i just don't see that happening on a forum-if we have anyone that can do that, we're sunk anyway).

so, again, just one man's opinion...my ideas may suck, for all i know, but i feel like we ought to give the 'tribe' a chance to work as an egalitarian group. other groups have done these kinds of htings; some successes, some failures (the commune's like oneida and some others come to mind)

Smile
reb

reb

Posts : 1240
Join date : 2008-04-27
Age : 87
Location : next to the women on this board so they know where i'm at

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by melodiccolor on Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:21 pm

I do like Reb's ideas. But there are also going to be times where action needs to be taken immediately and unilaterally, such as when someone is trolling or trying to systematically drive someone else away or otherwise harm them. Also, these campaigns can be done by pm's and there should be a mechanism for addressing that.

If there is just an honest disagreement and a few hurt feelings, then marks don't need to go against anyone, but perhaps a private forum where moderators meet with the affected parties to mediate and to try and work it out. If it escallates, then the warning do start.

Of course, criminal activity results in summarily getting banned. No vote required.

In a voting system, the duties of moderators and admins. can include mediating, running the votes and presenting the case in an objective fashion and deciding on what to do for those times things can't wait for a vote. And those situations should be clearly state in the guidelines.

Some of this is my ideas, and some is a consensus from previous conversations with people when we were deciding to do this. Thoughts anyone?
avatar
melodiccolor
Admin

Posts : 11747
Join date : 2008-04-27
Location : The Land of Seriously Sombrerosy Wonky Stuff

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by Justin Passing on Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:36 pm

I guess I'm the anarchist of the group at the moment.

I don't want any "hard & fast" rules - just guidelines. People get upset sometimes, especially highly sensitive people. One of the things people often need to do is vent, and I for one would like that to remain possible within the rules. I also think preventing all upsets is impossible, and it would be better to focus our efforts on ways of minimizing the damage they do rather than trying to prevent them from happening. In other words,encourage and promote healthy ways of dealing with/minimizing upsets rather than prohibiting them. If someone gets upset with another member, they should be encouraged to resolve it via PM's or email, and vent to others the same way (privately) if necessary. Name calling and brawling should be discouraged in the threads, and dealing with others respectfully strongly encouraged. But to make rules & punish sincere members for getting upset and/or losing their tempers is going too far in my opinion. It makes nasty but rather human circumstances worse.

When severe actions have to be taken, like banning a member, it may be good idea to use voting mechanisms like the built in polling feature. Polls provide the anonymity that Reb wants, and it brings an issue clearly out in the open and allows the group to express their opinion on how to resolve it. I'd rather do that then leave it to the "moderators" to decide. In my opinion, such measures should be only employed in very extreme circumstances when all other means of resolving things has failed.

As for deleting posts due to content, I'd like to avoid that. Anything that sweeps things "under the rug" feels nasty to me, and simply creates more pain, anger, uncertainty and fear in my opinion. People can edit their own posts if they feel the need, and moderators can PM the poster about them if necessary. For the most part I think that should be enough. Active censoring should be avoided as far as I'm concerned.
avatar
Justin Passing
Admin

Posts : 953
Join date : 2008-04-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by Nucky on Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:19 pm

Justin Passing wrote:I guess I'm the anarchist of the group at the moment.

I don't want any "hard & fast" rules - just guidelines. People get upset sometimes, especially highly sensitive people. One of the things people often need to do is vent, and I for one would like that to remain possible within the rules. I also think preventing all upsets is impossible, and it would be better to focus our efforts on ways of minimizing the damage they do rather than trying to prevent them from happening. In other words,encourage and promote healthy ways of dealing with/minimizing upsets rather than prohibiting them. If someone gets upset with another member, they should be encouraged to resolve it via PM's or email, and vent to others the same way (privately) if necessary. Name calling and brawling should be discouraged in the threads, and dealing with others respectfully strongly encouraged. But to make rules & punish sincere members for getting upset and/or losing their tempers is going too far in my opinion. It makes nasty but rather human circumstances worse.

When severe actions have to be taken, like banning a member, it may be good idea to use voting mechanisms like the built in polling feature. Polls provide the anonymity that Reb wants, and it brings an issue clearly out in the open and allows the group to express their opinion on how to resolve it. I'd rather do that then leave it to the "moderators" to decide. In my opinion, such measures should be only employed in very extreme circumstances when all other means of resolving things has failed.

As for deleting posts due to content, I'd like to avoid that. Anything that sweeps things "under the rug" feels nasty to me, and simply creates more pain, anger, uncertainty and fear in my opinion. People can edit their own posts if they feel the need, and moderators can PM the poster about them if necessary. For the most part I think that should be enough. Active censoring should be avoided as far as I'm concerned.

That makes sense to me, Justin. The thing that I liked about Vivid Life was the laissez-faire moderation style, and it worked fine. Also, I would like to encourage people to work out any conflicts they have with others directly rather than going straight to a moderator. Also, if someone is disgusted enough by another's post to complain about it, they should complain to the poster, not to the moderator.
avatar
Nucky
Admin

Posts : 6137
Join date : 2008-04-27
Location : Oakland County, MI

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by Logan (Earthmaiden) on Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:26 pm

Justin Passing wrote:I guess I'm the anarchist of the group at the moment.

I don't want any "hard & fast" rules - just guidelines. People get upset sometimes, especially highly sensitive people. One of the things people often need to do is vent, and I for one would like that to remain possible within the rules. I also think preventing all upsets is impossible, and it would be better to focus our efforts on ways of minimizing the damage they do rather than trying to prevent them from happening. In other words,encourage and promote healthy ways of dealing with/minimizing upsets rather than prohibiting them. If someone gets upset with another member, they should be encouraged to resolve it via PM's or email, and vent to others the same way (privately) if necessary. Name calling and brawling should be discouraged in the threads, and dealing with others respectfully strongly encouraged. But to make rules & punish sincere members for getting upset and/or losing their tempers is going too far in my opinion. It makes nasty but rather human circumstances worse.

When severe actions have to be taken, like banning a member, it may be good idea to use voting mechanisms like the built in polling feature. Polls provide the anonymity that Reb wants, and it brings an issue clearly out in the open and allows the group to express their opinion on how to resolve it. I'd rather do that then leave it to the "moderators" to decide. In my opinion, such measures should be only employed in very extreme circumstances when all other means of resolving things has failed.

As for deleting posts due to content, I'd like to avoid that. Anything that sweeps things "under the rug" feels nasty to me, and simply creates more pain, anger, uncertainty and fear in my opinion. People can edit their own posts if they feel the need, and moderators can PM the poster about them if necessary. For the most part I think that should be enough. Active censoring should be avoided as far as I'm concerned.

Justin you really got some good ideas. I think that being able to vent is imporatant too.

Logan (Earthmaiden)

Posts : 452
Join date : 2008-04-30
Age : 107

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by reb on Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:12 pm

i been mulling on this all day...Justin, i like the idea of 'let people work out their own conflicts'. imo, if people always run from a conflict, they never learn to deal with 'rough handling', and it's important for everyone to learn to stand up forthemselves. otoh, sometimes, there are conflicts where neither party will give an inch, people take sides, and a group is torn apart. as, i think, p.t. barnum said, you can't satisfy all of the people all the time (or perhaps i'm paraphrasing....no matter who said it...).

here's a 'witches brew' of ideas blended from where we started to where we seem to be now....

if two individuals are going to have 'sharp words' (don't ask me to define that-i can't make a dividing line...asking the impossible to strictly define 'sharp words'), then the rest of us should let them. nobody join in; we may feel x is right, and y is wrong, but let them fight it out...life on a forum is not supposed to be the wwe, where one wrestler is in trouble, and six of his buddies come bash the other guy with a chair (this used to be marquis of queensbury rules, i think). however, as admins/mods, whatever, we have a responsibility to 'keep the motor running'. if either of the two appeal to us as a group for a decision or action of some sort, we need to put our heads together and decide if that person or the two involved do need 'an intervention'. maybe so, maybe no. if more than the two who started off get involved, perhaps we should 'shut the thread down' temporarily, or perhaps 'invoke a _____ day cooling off period', in which the admins make a decision whether to put to a vote whether someone has stepped over the line from spirited debate to personal attack; if we vote in the majority that what someone has said is a personal attack, then put the whole issue to a vote as to 'did x make a personal attack? did y make a personal attack?' ad infinitum....if it's found that all parties were making personal attacks, then everybody involved who is voted by the board members (a quorum might be considered as 'everyone who votes within _____ days of the matter being put to a vote of the general membership''-those who are not interested enough to check out what happened or come on the board at least once a week...they're not interested enough to be allowed to vote imo)

as an emergency measure, not to be exercised lightly, any individual admin should perhaps have the 'power' to shut a thread for 3 days by themselves....not all of us are going to be on everyday; some of us might take a vacation (ah, to dream!); what we should all understand though is that this 'individual action' should be truly an emergency....someone threatening someone else blatantly or something of that nature. it's obvious if that happens what we are going to do, but any individual admin who sees this should be allowed to lock a thread, and take action immediately....we dont' want to wait for the full firecrew while the builiding burns down (i've seen enough of buildings burning down on hsp forums, personally).

anyway, more loose ideas....if someone can congeal this to something simple, then that's cool with me. to say 'there are going to be no rules except the forum provider rules (host) though, that seems like i know where that goes...some people are accomplished fighters; others are not. if we want a 'darwin's natural selection', then that's what we will get. i am not diametrically opposed to this, but some people will sure as hell abandon ship if that's how things are. the severely wounded will fall by the way; or crawl in a hole. all people are created equal, but they don't turn out equal in all things, and the ability to verbally defend oneself is one of those areas where all are not equal. sound like a dam socialist, don't i? lol!

i'm cool with whatever-if we all agree 'no rules except the hosts' then let the chips fall where they may...but my concern is the tree may fall with the chips...i'm tired of 'new boards due to free for all conflict' and 'individual decision of the strongest person'....if it was legal, and there were no other consequences, i'd simply eliminate those i don't like, but that's not the way the world works so far....it may get there, but it's not there yet....people will vote with their 'electronic feet' if things get too rough and tumble...to be totally frank, the last three incidents have not made me think better of my own species at all...they have proven that my misanthropic ideas are on target to a large degree. i don't really want more proof of how i feel; i'd like for some forum to prove me wrong for once....is this it? i dunno...remains to be seen...i'm from missouri, show me. anarchy requires a certain discipline of all those who live within it; a certain level of common sense and civility, respect for others and for oneself, or it descends into chaos...i'm fed up with chaos...to my eyeballs fed up with it...

y'all might go 'audit' tractorbynet.com's forum....it's mostly guys...they are usually civil. once in awhile, they get decidedly uncivil...go find some of those uncivil posts, and see if you can ascertain 'could i handle this level of grief?'...if all of us can, then fine; if not, then we need to discuss this further, and not accept 'pure anarchy'....i haven't seen a mod stick their nose in tractorbynet yet; maybe i haven't been reading it enough, but i've been poking around there for about a month....Smile

anyway, my two bits...
reb

reb

Posts : 1240
Join date : 2008-04-27
Age : 87
Location : next to the women on this board so they know where i'm at

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by Justin Passing on Thu May 01, 2008 2:32 am

For the most part I agree with you Rebel. My "anarchist" comment was firmly tongue in cheek, and I don't think full out "anarchy/free speech" will work for us. All I'd like to see is a sincere effort on the part of the group as a whole to keep the peace rather than an overly active "police force" that handles everything by the book. After all, the only justice in a court room comes from the judge & jury in my opinion. In other words - justice & fair play can only come from people not law. That's why I'd rather see people (the group) handling things as much as possible rather than an emphasis on "rule of law". We need guidelines of course - to steer with and make rule enforcement possible - but they shouldn't be so clearly defined that we're forced to use them when it would be better to do otherwise. In each individual circumstance different measures may be called for, and our "rule" system should allow for that, not to encourage favoritism, but rather to encourage the most "healthy" solution to situations possible. Given the rather compassionate & forgiving nature of our group that should be able to work. That may be a pollyanna attitude on my part, but what's the point of building a community if you can't make it nice? It may not work in the real world, but this isn't the "real world". This is our own little community on the internet, and the members are a select & somewhat unique group who share a strong desire to get along with each other, so why not try and be somewhat utopian about it? It's at least worth a try in my opinion.

In the end, what I'd like to see is a place where we can be reasonably free to be who we are without hurting each other. It's necessary that we remain sensitive to the needs and feelings of others, and do our best to treat everyone with respect, but in normal circumstances that seems to come naturally to this group. Of course, all of us will get upset from time to time and react badly to things, but if the rest of the group can keep the "snowballing" to a minimum and do their best to be understanding that'll give the upset parties their best chance to catch themselves and recover a healthier perspective. To me, that's the path with the most positive growth for us, and is the one I'd like to pursue.
avatar
Justin Passing
Admin

Posts : 953
Join date : 2008-04-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by Logan (Earthmaiden) on Thu May 01, 2008 7:03 am

Right on Justin! (no head bangin' smilie either?)

Logan (Earthmaiden)

Posts : 452
Join date : 2008-04-30
Age : 107

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by reb on Thu May 01, 2008 10:18 am

Justin,

like i said, if the group at large votes to have 'no boundaries set', then i'm cool with that. time will prove if it's workable or not, usually time will prove things in a very conclusive fashion. i dont' see anyone else objecting to your proposal, so, it looks like the 'nothing forum' has 'nothing' for rules except the hosts rules. like outback steakhouse 'no rules, just right'. lol!

if there is anyone here who objects, best speak up. i'm seconding Justin's motion.

a show of 'ayes' please?

reb

reb

Posts : 1240
Join date : 2008-04-27
Age : 87
Location : next to the women on this board so they know where i'm at

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by reb on Thu May 01, 2008 10:28 am

here's another forum i used to go on, before they got too nasty with each other. i dunno how they are now, as i haven't logged in in so long, i forgot my user name and password, and even threw away my 'master log in sheet' that had 'em on it...there used to be some great examples of 'lousy social behaviour', the kind of thing i detest....take a look if you have time. might help y'all decide how you want to act, or not...lol!

http://centerpointe.yuku.com/
reb

reb

Posts : 1240
Join date : 2008-04-27
Age : 87
Location : next to the women on this board so they know where i'm at

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by Little Sister on Thu May 01, 2008 12:00 pm

Just my two cents. In a sense what we're doing is building a utopian society. Having experimented with communal living, I believe that anarchy and communism can work on a small scale with a select group who share similar values and goals. At this point, our numbers are small, but I do believe that eventually we will encounter some people who simply get their kicks out of flaming and harrassing others, and destroying our community. I can agree with Justin's suggestion, as long as admins do have the ability to nip outright destructive and illegal activity immediately. And since, the group will be open to feedback from all members via polling, we could always amend this later, if the majority feel it's getting out of hand.
avatar
Little Sister

Posts : 755
Join date : 2008-04-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by melodiccolor on Thu May 01, 2008 4:07 pm

Justin, for the most part, I don't have a problem with a light touch when it comes to problems; in fact I prefer it. But still there are those times when action needs to be taken. I hope it never happens here, but people being what they are, I guess eventually, someone from the outside is going to want to come here solely for the purpose of causing trouble of some kind. There does need to be a mechanism in place for when it happens and it should be clearly written out. When conflicts between members go too far and start seriously harming someone or threatens to tear the group apart, there needs to be some method set up to deal with that as well. But it is only for the most serious things should any kind of intervention be considered.

For the survival of the forum, we do need to honor our host's requirements of deleting hateful material. As much as I'm against censorship, it may be that we don't have a choice in this, and it seems not too onerous.

As for the term "antichrist"... Rolling Eyes The whole point of this phase is to get everyone's ideas and to have time to think it over before any decisions are made by the whole group. No just "following the leader" please, but many sides presented.
avatar
melodiccolor
Admin

Posts : 11747
Join date : 2008-04-27
Location : The Land of Seriously Sombrerosy Wonky Stuff

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by melodiccolor on Thu May 01, 2008 4:19 pm

Hmmm, too much stress, not enough sleep. I missed that there was a page 2. Rolling Eyes

It seems I posted the same sentiment as you Little Sister. We seem to be thinking the same thing on this issue.
avatar
melodiccolor
Admin

Posts : 11747
Join date : 2008-04-27
Location : The Land of Seriously Sombrerosy Wonky Stuff

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by Justin Passing on Thu May 01, 2008 6:35 pm

I woke up thinking about this, and I think what I'm looking for is working under a "constitution" and settling serious disputes by a "town meeting" kind of setup. I think it's technically possible to set up a section of the forum where only mods/admins can start threads but members can post, and that could become the "town meeting" part of the equation. That way threads (meetings) would only get started there when a consensus of people who felt an issue justified it, but once the "meeting" was started all members could publicly state their opinion. It could also serve as the place for votes (polls), if and when such things became necessary. Not a true democracy of course, but it approaches it, and such setups have worked well in the real world as long as the group was below a certain size, which I expect we always will be.

These are all just ideas obviously enough. I'm not really looking for a "no boundaries" situation, just one where "guiding principles" rather than "laws" are being enforced in order to allow for as much human "justice & fair play" as we can achieve. I'm not looking for "lawlessness" - what I want is the leeway for human compassion to temper judgments & decisions. How well it works depends on us, and how well we make it work, but in my opinion that's always the case. Law can't correct for antisocial desires/unhappiness shared by a large percentage of any group. At that point the only solution is brutal techniques like fascism, and I want no part of such things here.

So if people like the idea, I think the next step is to start working on our "constitution". To draw up a set of behavioral guidelines for the forum. Something that emphasizes respect & compassion between members while allowing for individual differences. Something which makes it clear that differences of opinion are fine, but fights about who's right and who's wrong are damaging and pointless. Something that allows people to say that certain things bother them, but encourages them to do so in a way that is least likely to upset or offend others.

Trolls & troublemakers are a different matter entirely. If someone's purpose here is to cause trouble, then banning them makes sense, and I expect the group will be happy to vote for their expulsion.


Last edited by Justin Passing on Thu May 01, 2008 6:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Justin Passing
Admin

Posts : 953
Join date : 2008-04-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by Rivershine on Thu May 01, 2008 6:38 pm

Logan wrote:Right on Justin! (no head bangin' smilie either?)

I took the liberty of adding a headbanging smiley for you.
headbang

geek
avatar
Rivershine

Posts : 1871
Join date : 2008-04-27
Age : 39
Location : The present moment.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by Nucky on Thu May 01, 2008 6:56 pm

Justin Passing wrote:I woke up thinking about this, and I think what I'm looking for is working under a "constitution" and settling serious disputes by a "town meeting" kind of setup. I think it's technically possible to set up a section of the forum where only mods/admins can start threads but members can post, and that could become the "town meeting" part of the equation. That way threads (meetings) would only get started there when a consensus of people who felt an issue justified it, but once the "meeting" was started all members could publicly state their opinion. It could also serve as the place for votes (polls), if and when such things became necessary. Not a true democracy of course, but it approaches it, and such setups have worked well in the real world as long as the group was below a certain size, which I expect we always will be.

These are all just ideas obviously enough. I'm not really looking for a "no boundaries" situation, just one where "guiding principles" rather than "laws" are being enforced in order to allow for as much human "justice & fair play" as we can achieve. I'm not looking for "lawlessness" - what I want is the leeway for human compassion to temper judgments & decisions. How well it works depends on us, and how well we make it work, but in my opinion that's always the case. Law can't correct for antisocial desires/unhappiness shared by a large percentage of any group. At that point the only solution is brutal techniques like fascism, and I want no part of such things here.

So if people like the idea, I think the next step is to start working on our "constitution". To draw up a set of behavioral guidelines for the forum. Something that emphasizes respect & compassion between members while allowing for individual differences. Something which makes it clear that differences of opinion are fine, but fights about who's right and who's wrong are damaging and pointless. Something that allows people to say that certain things bother them, but encourages them to do so in a way that is least likely to upset or offend others.

Trolls & troublemakers are a different matter entirely. If someone's purpose here is to cause trouble, then banning them makes sense, and I expect the group will be happy to vote for their expulsion.

That all makes perfect sense to me, Justin. That's pretty much what I'm for, but you explained it better than I ever could.
avatar
Nucky
Admin

Posts : 6137
Join date : 2008-04-27
Location : Oakland County, MI

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by melodiccolor on Thu May 01, 2008 7:27 pm

Justin Passing wrote:I woke up thinking about this, and I think what I'm looking for is working under a "constitution" and settling serious disputes by a "town meeting" kind of setup. I think it's technically possible to set up a section of the forum where only mods/admins can start threads but members can post, and that could become the "town meeting" part of the equation. That way threads (meetings) would only get started there when a consensus of people who felt an issue justified it, but once the "meeting" was started all members could publicly state their opinion. It could also serve as the place for votes (polls), if and when such things became necessary. Not a true democracy of course, but it approaches it, and such setups have worked well in the real world as long as the group was below a certain size, which I expect we always will be.

These are all just ideas obviously enough. I'm not really looking for a "no boundaries" situation, just one where "guiding principles" rather than "laws" are being enforced in order to allow for as much human "justice & fair play" as we can achieve. I'm not looking for "lawlessness" - what I want is the leeway for human compassion to temper judgments & decisions. How well it works depends on us, and how well we make it work, but in my opinion that's always the case. Law can't correct for antisocial desires/unhappiness shared by a large percentage of any group. At that point the only solution is brutal techniques like fascism, and I want no part of such things here.

So if people like the idea, I think the next step is to start working on our "constitution". To draw up a set of behavioral guidelines for the forum. Something that emphasizes respect & compassion between members while allowing for individual differences. Something which makes it clear that differences of opinion are fine, but fights about who's right and who's wrong are damaging and pointless. Something that allows people to say that certain things bother them, but encourages them to do so in a way that is least likely to upset or offend others.

Trolls & troublemakers are a different matter entirely. If someone's purpose here is to cause trouble, then banning them makes sense, and I expect the group will be happy to vote for their expulsion.

This sounds like it's well worth a try. I still think if it's an emergency situation, there should be a mechanism to deal quickly with it, such as an emergency time out while the group votes. And we do need to put the host's requirements into the constitution too, to protect ourselves. Other than that, I really like the layout.
avatar
melodiccolor
Admin

Posts : 11747
Join date : 2008-04-27
Location : The Land of Seriously Sombrerosy Wonky Stuff

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by Justin Passing on Thu May 01, 2008 7:36 pm

Sadly, I just browsed through the permissions here, and I don't see a way to set-up a section that would prevent normal members from starting threads yet still allow them to post to existing ones. Crying or Very sad Not having that feature will make the "town meeting" thing a bit more difficult to administer. Not impossible, just more work.
avatar
Justin Passing
Admin

Posts : 953
Join date : 2008-04-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by melodiccolor on Thu May 01, 2008 8:08 pm

Well, we can just use the honor system; State in the forum title that only board staff can start the threads but members can post. If a member starts a thread, we can just privately discuss with them what this is about and either give our approval for the thread, or have a board member repost it or if the board feels the thread is unnecessary, lock it. But only in the town meeting forum.
avatar
melodiccolor
Admin

Posts : 11747
Join date : 2008-04-27
Location : The Land of Seriously Sombrerosy Wonky Stuff

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by Fossy on Wed May 21, 2008 12:35 pm

melodiccolor wrote:I noticed the discussion has started on another thread, but this is important enough to have its own thread.

So far, Aiden has suggested having a good demographic balance for moderators. I agree; power shouldn't be concentrated in too few hands. It needs to be shared.

I completely agree and I think that the mods should not necessarily be very close. Because when you have mods that are close friends they seem to always agree on the situation. That's just from what I've observed. Whoever wants to be a mod good luck. Smile
avatar
Fossy

Posts : 285
Join date : 2008-04-27
Age : 36
Location : Philly suburbs, PA

View user profile http://www.myspace.com/freaklm

Back to top Go down

default Re: Deciding on rules and guidelines

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum