How Would You Clarify the Rules?

[Debater Slayer]

If you could edit the rules so that they would be clearer to you as a member, which part or parts would you reword or expand?

In other words, from your perspective as a member of RF, what do you think would be a modification to the rules that would help members avoid inadvertently violating them?

Please note that publicly mentioning specific instances of moderation is against Rule 2, so if mentioning any is necessary for your post, feel free to post in the Site Feedback forum or PM me.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

If you could edit the rules so that they would be clearer to you as a member, which part or parts would you reword or expand?

In other words, from your perspective as a member of RF, what do you think would be a modification to the rules that would help members avoid inadvertently violating them?

Please note that publicly mentioning specific instances of moderation is against Rule 2, so if mentioning any is necessary for your post, feel free to post in the Site Feedback forum or PM me.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

Having been on different sites before, I've realized there's usually a language barrier between members and staff in regards to the rules. What I see on these other sites, is that staff have to describe the rules in an abstract way in order to avoid members knowing enough to know how to exploit the rules. This results in an unsolvable barrier where members may never 100% understand the rules from the outside looking in.

So, the basic answer is, I'm not sure what can be done to manage to describe them a lot better, while still describing them in an abstract manner.

 

[Debater Slayer]

What I see on these sites, is that staff have to describe the rules in an abstract way in order to avoid members knowing enough to know how to exploit the rules.

This is not the case on RF, and for the 11 years I have been on staff, the direction of the staff has been to heavily prefer clarity in the rules and policies of the forum.

The question here is about what each member believes would be a useful modification or addition to the text of the rules to that end.

 

[sun rise]

My suggestions in parentheses. General comment is violating English rules by excessive capitalization.

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff (comments excludes nice things "Personal attacks directed to members and staff")
2. Discussion/Dispute of Moderation (this seems too drastic. I should be able to privately discuss why I was dinged. Add "outside of the proper feedback area")
3. Trolling and Bullying
4. Solicity/Advertising and Off-Topic Spam (fix spelling error solicity should be soliciting)
5. Obscene Language and Adult/Violent Content (theoretically discussing violence on the part of cops is forbidden. Add a verb "promoting obscene language...").
6. Illegal Activities (theoretically promoting a demonstration might be considered rule 6. Again a verb might help. I should be able to discuss my drug use AND WHY I STOPPED in the 1960's)
7. Quotations and Citations/References (we quote all the time. change this to knowingly violating copyright laws)
8. Preaching/Proselytizing (this is vague. A lot of posting is implicit preaching. Maybe "explicitly preaching...")
9. Subverting/Undermining the Forum Mission
10. Debating in Non-debate Forums or Posting in DIR/ONLY Forums

Well you did ask after all.

 

[sun rise]

[*]Obscene Language and Adult/Violent Content (theoretically discussing violence on the part of cops is forbidden. Add a verb "promoting obscene language...").

I just changed my mind. We use **** all the time relying on the software to **** it out. How about "bypassing the forum obscene language filters or promoting/advocating violence"?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

This is not the case on RF, and for the 11 years I have been on staff, the direction of the staff has been to heavily prefer clarity in the rules and policies of the forum.

The question here is about what each member believes would be a useful modification or addition to the text of the rules to that end.

Okay, thanks. Good to know. (For others just popping in, I was speaking more in general, about my experience on other sites)

As for whether I can think of any other input, I'll think about it. But, I have no further suggestions currently.

 

[Jimmy]

Bannings are a little vague

 

[Secret Chief]

If you could edit the rules so that they would be clearer to you as a member, which part or parts would you reword or expand?

In other words, from your perspective as a member of RF, what do you think would be a modification to the rules that would help members avoid inadvertently violating them?

Please note that publicly mentioning specific instances of moderation is against Rule 2, so if mentioning any is necessary for your post, feel free to post in the Site Feedback forum or PM me.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

How about addressing it from the other direction? What issues recurr that the staff have to deal with? Those presumably are the areas that could do with amending/clarifying/adding/dropping.
Personally I find my monthly payments keeps the staff sweet.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Bannings are a little vague

They should show outright whenever a person is being banned or suspended publicly and not hide it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

They should show outright whenever a person is being banned or suspended publicly and not hide it.

There are no plans to make moderation public, and there are multiple reasons for this including prevention of strife, embarrassment, and controversy on the public forums.

This thread is about potential clarification in the wording of the rules as they currently are so that their purpose or limits are clearer, not changes to the substance of the rules.

 

[Quagmire]

I think everybody would be much happier if we just posted, "No, you're right: we really are just picking on you".

 

[Twilight Hue]

There are no plans to make moderation public, and there are multiple reasons for this including prevention of strife, embarrassment, and controversy on the public forums.

This thread is about potential clarification in the wording of the rules as they currently are so that their purpose or limits are clearer, not changes to the substance of the rules.

It was just a side comment with @Moon .

I would go with two things that rules should be kept simple and straightforward. A lot of confusion imv is whenever things over the years get added and amended enough where the orginal meaning gets overly convoluted and twisted in too many directions.

 

[Estro Felino]

Too vague...and when something is too vague, people won't understand.
I started a thread some time ago...in order to facilitate what guarantees a nice and pleasant debate.
And it's very specific.

Tips for a nice debate

Hi guys :) how are you? :heartpulse: Here I would like to discuss what a nice debate should be. Not only online. In general. Even in real life, if you are a university professor debating with a colleague, or a scholar / expert invited to a TV show. As you guys know, Socrates used to say that...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Debater Slayer]

Too vague...and when something is too vague, people won't understand.

Which parts do you find too vague, and how would you reword them to address that?

I started a thread some time ago...in order to facilitate what guarantees a nice and pleasant debate.
And it's very specific.

Tips for a nice debate

Hi guys :) how are you? :heartpulse: Here I would like to discuss what a nice debate should be. Not only online. In general. Even in real life, if you are a university professor debating with a colleague, or a scholar / expert invited to a TV show. As you guys know, Socrates used to say that...

www.religiousforums.com

Those are general guidelines that would most likely be unenforceable as the rules of an online forum, though. For example, the staff can't appoint ourselves as the arbiters of what constitutes something like "simple language" or "understanding the interlocutor's perspective," and trying to do so would probably stifle debate and restrict members' expression too much.

 

[Estro Felino]

Which parts do you find too vague, and how would you reword them to address that?



Those are general guidelines that would most likely be unenforceable as the rules of an online forum, though. For example, the staff can't appoint ourselves as the arbiters of what constitutes something like "simple language" or "understanding the interlocutor's perspective," and trying to do so would probably stifle debate and restrict members' expression too much.

They are tips, not rules.

 

[Debater Slayer]

They are tips, not rules.

This thread is for receiving feedback about the clarity of the 10 forum rules and possible rewording thereof from members, so I'm not sure how the tips are related to that.

 

[Estro Felino]

This thread is for receiving feedback about the clarity of the 10 forum rules and possible rewording thereof from members, so I'm not sure how the tips are related to that.

I think there should be a rule that clarifies how a debate is supposed to be civil a respectful.
But not a vague, undefined rule.
With specific characteristics, otherwise anything becomes interpretable.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think everybody would be much happier if we just posted, "No, you're right: we really are just picking on you".

It would be more honest, indeed.

 

[Quagmire]

It would be more honest, indeed.

If you say so.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Okay, I wanted to say that I've been looking over the rules, and I think they look pretty exceptional as is. I do have one issue, though. It's, if I understand correctly, the rules under rule 10 don't acknowledge the Philosophy forum nor its sub-forum called Ethics and Morals as a debate board, whereas at the top of these boards, they are acknowledged as debate boards:

I can potentially see there as being some confusion, there.