Member Survey: Overhauling the Rules' Text

[Debater Slayer]

Hi, all,

The staff is currently in the process of overhauling the text of the forum rules in order to provide additional clarity, reflect some changes in the software (e.g., the current rating system), and increase transparency.

If you have any suggestions regarding what you believe could be a beneficial or helpful clarification in the rules as a member of RF, please share them here. If they relate to individual instances of moderation, please share them either in the Site Feedback forum or via PM to me.

Also, please indicate in the (anonymous) poll whether you, as a member of RF, believe this attempt to update the rules' text to maximize clarity and transparency is a positive, neutral, or negative change.

Thank you.

 

[VoidCat]

Maybe a mention in the rules on private forums and where to find a list of them? Some folk don't know what private forums we have that we could request to join and i often forget what ones we do

 

[sun rise]

I think it's important to KISS and not try to eliminate human judgement.

So I'm thinking of minor changes rather than a paragraph or worse on each point

1. Personal Negative comments about Members and Staff (really there are joke threads where negativity goes on and is ok but negative is better. "Except in jest" opens up "but I meant it as a joke when it was not - keep judgement intact.)
2. Discussion/Dispute of Moderation (it should be OK to discuss moderation - ask about what kind of thing will be moderated if one is unsure)
3. Trolling and Bullying
4. Solicity Soliciting/Advertising and Off-Topic Spam (spelling error)
5. Obscene Language and Adult/Violent Content
6. Currently Illegal Activities (this is tricky since some activities in the past were illegal - maybe add the word "currently"? And illegal is very broad - jaywalking?)
7. Quotations and Citations/References that violate copyright (we quote all the time and provide references all the time add copyright)
8. Preaching/Proselytizing (this is a *real* judgement call since people do preach but not in an obvious way - it's all debating with a purpose)
9. Subverting/Undermining the Forum Mission (need a link to the purpose)
10. Debating in Non-debate Forums or Posting in DIR/ONLY Forums (we used to have 2 kinds of DIRs. Is there a way to add "questions ok" flags?)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Revert to the original character of the DIR, or eliminate them.
Revert to a single frubal or eliminate them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Regarding illegal activities, it would be useful
to be able to discuss civil disobedience. But
I can understand continuing to disallow it.

Give credit for "neutral" frubals. They're often
an emotional reaction added to <informative>.

 

[Heyo]

Hi, all,

The staff is currently in the process of overhauling the text of the forum rules in order to provide additional clarity, reflect some changes in the software (e.g., the current rating system), and increase transparency.

I'm all for more transparency. As I already said before, there's a reason we got rid of vehmic courts in jurisprudence. If RF can get rid of its clandestine moderation, it would improve the credibility of the process.

 

[Quagmire]

I'm all for more transparency. As I already said before, there's a reason we got rid of vehmic courts in jurisprudence. If RF can get rid of its clandestine moderation, it would improve the credibility of the process.

I've been on sites that had a public flogging style of moderation.

Believe me, it's not an improvement.

Edit: or maybe I should ask, what advantages do you see to having actions taken against other members made public?

And do you believe that these action should be made public whether or not the member in question objects?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Quotations and Citations/References that violate copyright (we quote all the time and provide references all the time add copyright)

Some member cite nothing and mamy still violate that by copy most or all or an article.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. believe this attempt to update the rules' text to maximize clarity and transparency is a positive, neutral, or negative change.

Positive change, all for it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm all for more transparency. As I already said before, there's a reason we got rid of vehmic courts in jurisprudence. If RF can get rid of its clandestine moderation, it would improve the credibility of the process.

The problem I see is that notices of violations are
broad boilerplate that don't explain what the
infraction was. If one wants to understand,
it requires starting a thread in Site Feedback
(not the friendliest place on Earth).
This involves more effort for both poster & staff.
Although most posters don't bother...which I
guess saves staff time. But this is dysfunctional.

 

[Heyo]

I've been on sites that had a public flogging style of moderation.

Believe me, it's not an improvement.

Edit: or maybe I should ask, what advantages do you see to having actions taken against other members made public?

And do you believe that these action should be made public whether or not the member in question objects?

It has been a principle in most jurisdictions that the law and its application should be public.
The benefits are that precedent creates examples for everyone to see and to understand the rules better and how they are applied. It also makes the process transparent, which prevents conspiracy theories of favouritism and thus, fosters trust. (At least if the system is just. An unjust system can well hide behind obscurity.)

 

[Revoltingest]

It has been a principle in most jurisdictions that the law and its application should be public.
The benefits are that precedent creates examples for everyone to see and to understand the rules better and how they are applied. It also makes the process transparent, which prevents conspiracy theories of favouritism and thus, fosters trust. (At least if the system is just. An unjust system can well hide behind obscurity.)

"Public" could mean that interested posters
would seek out Site Feedback threads where
the moderation process happens.
It needn't be something broadcast as regular
threads are. Third party commentary could
be either highly limited or not granted.

 

[Heyo]

"Public" could mean that interested posters
would seek out Site Feedback threads where
the moderation process happens.

That would be a step in the right direction. (Opening up site feedback to interested members.)

 

[Alien826]

Here are my thoughts, organized by the section of the rules that they refer to.

#4 Add some "looseness" on off topic posting. Threads do drift into other areas and there is no problem with that imo. Also an occasional touch of humor can be fun.

#5 This is a very personal view and I know won't get anywhere with it. I have never understood why some words are considered to be "bad" and not to be spoken. Words are just that, vibrations in the air. Anyway, it's possible to be incredibly insulting without ever using a "cuss" word.

#8 The universally ignored rule. I see proselytizing everywhere here, blatant and out in the open, and I've never seen any of it banned. I wonder though how much it matters. Perhaps we should recognize that people that are very emotionally or intellectually attached to their particular beliefs will try to persuade others to their point of view. Christians, for example, are specifically commanded by their religion to do this. I think our members in general are well equipped to decide for themselves if they want to be persuaded, and I would miss the "lunatic fringe" of Flat Earthers and YECs if they were no longer allowed to push their beliefs.

I'd also remove the the rule that all statements should be phrased with "in my opinion" or similar. A while back there were a few members that tried to obey this by tacking such a phrase on everything they wrote and it just sounded odd. I think a general assumption that statements of fact are really opinions works for most of us.

#10 Just one point here. Posting in DIR forums can be automatically controlled. I think this may be already going on as the other day I found I was not allowed to post in a particular forum.

I'll finish with a word of thanks to the Moderators, that do an often thankless but important job.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Maybe a mention in the rules on private forums and where to find a list of them? Some folk don't know what private forums we have that we could request to join and i often forget what ones we do

I think we might be able to mention them in Rule 10. Thanks for the suggestion!

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think it's important to KISS and not try to eliminate human judgement.

So I'm thinking of minor changes rather than a paragraph or worse on each point

1. Personal Negative comments about Members and Staff (really there are joke threads where negativity goes on and is ok but negative is better. "Except in jest" opens up "but I meant it as a joke when it was not - keep judgement intact.)
2. Discussion/Dispute of Moderation (it should be OK to discuss moderation - ask about what kind of thing will be moderated if one is unsure)
3. Trolling and Bullying
4. Solicity Soliciting/Advertising and Off-Topic Spam (spelling error)
5. Obscene Language and Adult/Violent Content
6. Currently Illegal Activities (this is tricky since some activities in the past were illegal - maybe add the word "currently"? And illegal is very broad - jaywalking?)
7. Quotations and Citations/References that violate copyright (we quote all the time and provide references all the time add copyright)
8. Preaching/Proselytizing (this is a *real* judgement call since people do preach but not in an obvious way - it's all debating with a purpose)
9. Subverting/Undermining the Forum Mission (need a link to the purpose)
10. Debating in Non-debate Forums or Posting in DIR/ONLY Forums (we used to have 2 kinds of DIRs. Is there a way to add "questions ok" flags?)

Thanks. We are going over all suggestions in this thread and reviewing them, including the above.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Revert to the original character of the DIR, or eliminate them.
Revert to a single frubal or eliminate them.

Thanks. DIRs might need some more clarification; we are still ironing out some details.

As for frubals, many members asked for reinstatement of the ratings when they were removed after the software change, so we will keep them due to the membership's interest in them. Removing them would go against the wishes of the majority here, from what we have seen.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Regarding illegal activities, it would be useful
to be able to discuss civil disobedience. But
I can understand continuing to disallow it.

Yes, Rule 6 exists to cover the forum's legal bases, so it is one of the areas in which we have to be most cautious. "Better safe than sorry" applies to it more than any other rule.

Give credit for "neutral" frubals. They're often
an emotional reaction added to <informative>.

Some members use them to acknowledge posts rather than rate them positively or negatively, hence the lack of reaction score from them. We have not yet discussed whether to enable reaction scores for the "Informative" and "Useful" ratings, though, as those are sometimes indeed used in a positive manner. Making them give reaction score may be something for us to consider, although we are currently prioritizing the rewording of the rules.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As for frubals, many members asked for reinstatement of the ratings when they were removed after the software change, so we will keep them due to the membership's interest in them. Removing them would go against the wishes of the majority here, from what we have seen.

Not a problem.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, Rule 6 exists to cover the forum's legal bases, so it is one of the areas in which we have to be most cautious. "Better safe than sorry" applies to it more than any other rule.



Some members use them to acknowledge posts rather than rate them positively or negatively, hence the lack of reaction score from them. We have not yet discussed whether to enable reaction scores for the "Informative" and "Useful" ratings, though, as those are sometimes indeed used in a positive manner. Making them give reaction score may be something for us to consider, although we are currently prioritizing the rewording of the rules.

In my experience, the "neutral" ones
have always been positive.
The "creative" frubal seems to be
used negatively often.
I don't see as significant the differences
between them all that ya'll do.