Important Questionnaire #21: RF Rule 3

[Sunstone]

This questionnaire is important to me: I am gathering member feedback to help me make better policy decisions. Please help out by responding to it.

RF Rule 3 reads in its entirety:

3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:

1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.

2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.


How strongly do you agree or disagree with this statement: "Overall, RF Rule 3 is reasonable."

Please pick which one of these five options is closest to your views. If you do not see an option that suits you, please accept this poll was not designed for you, and move on.

OPTION ONE: I strongly agree with the statement.

OPTION TWO: I mostly agree with the statement.

OPTION THREE: I neither agree nor disagree with the statement.

OPTION FOUR: I mostly disagree with the statement.

OPTION FIVE: I strongly disagree with the statement.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I answered strongly agree, because rule 3 is important in a forum.
I do realize i might have been on the edge of stepping over the line of this rule a few times my self in RF but i see the good in the rule.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This questionnaire is important to me: I am gathering member feedback to help me make better policy decisions. Please help out by responding to it.

RF Rule 3 reads in its entirety:

3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:

1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.

2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.


How strongly do you agree or disagree with this statement: "Overall, RF Rule 3 is reasonable."

Please pick which one of these five options is closest to your views. If you do not see an option that suits you, please accept this poll was not designed for you, and move on.

OPTION ONE: I strongly agree with the statement.

OPTION TWO: I mostly agree with the statement.

OPTION THREE: I neither agree nor disagree with the statement.

OPTION FOUR: I mostly disagree with the statement.

OPTION FIVE: I strongly disagree with the statement.

I strongly agree. I only see it here from fundamentalist whose intent is well meaning aside from their evangalization techniques. So, it's a judgement call. My advice is to make sure it's not based on seniority.

 

[Terry Sampson]

My advice is to make sure it's not based on seniority.

How does that work? The longer you've been here, the more rule 3 violation you can get away with?

 

[Eddi]

I voted "strongly agree"

I like my internet forums nice and civil

 

[bobhikes]

This questionnaire is important to me: I am gathering member feedback to help me make better policy decisions. Please help out by responding to it.

RF Rule 3 reads in its entirety:

3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:

1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.

2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.

I agree totally with Number 3 but Number 1 and Number 2 depend on peoples feelings simply stating that Jesus is not God upsets some, Printing their God's name upsets others. These people should stay solely in the Dir or discussion area's. In a debate thread it should be assumed you may be upset or offended and it is not bullying or trolling. In debating I sometimes try to get a rise out of someone to prove a point.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How does that work? The longer you've been here, the more rule 3 violation you can get away with?

There are I guess two or "seniors" who, well intentioned, do put down other people's faiths and argue (rather than debate) their positions false. To few even more so it's only open one-way-challenge.

Say a newbie comes in with the same name, Person X. Person X and the other say the same thing. In many chats I've been to, the newbie is the first questioned. Sometimes they are warned but in some forums it's rare. A strict boot. It depends on what is said but if both were anonymous, that's pretty much the gist.

Not sure why that is. I haven't been on many chats and forums as much as I used to years ago. I've seen it happen, though. Religious and otherwise.

 

[stvdv]

3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk.

I voted "I strongly agree" ...

BUT:

Allowing 1 to be a big jerk might be a good idea, if you see RF as a place to grow, and especially grow in "Peace" and "Love", whatever the provocations. I mean, it is easy to be in Peace if nobody ever can upset you because of strict rules.

My Master used to say "When there is a group of people meeting in my name, and they are doing very well, then I will send a big troublemaker, just to test how they handle that. And when the group is even better, I will send them a married couple troublemakers".

Does make sense to me. But after being in His Ashram for 10 years, it's great to have such a peaceful forum, with so many well behaved members.

So, yes, I voted "I strongly agree"

 

[sun rise]

Side nit pic. The choices in the OP were in the opposite order of the poll choices and worded differently but I got the meaning.

As with all rules, interpretation is key. I applaud the intent but wound up thinking "what if" or "how about". So this is why I voted "mostly":

Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive,

Most people? That sounds like the old argument about "community standards". Most people on RF? Most people in society at large?

Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion.

I can't think of one right now, but I'd love to see a better word than "misrepresentation". The word "misrepresentation" is a can-of-worms word. I think people on the right continually misrepresent the left (and I'm sure the favor is returned). I find endless posts where a religion is misrepresented most likely due to ignorance.

I could have reported quite a few instances of my opinion that some poster misrepresented the meaning of some scripture.

altering the words of another member

This happens on a regular basis as part of the interchange between some of us in humor threads.

Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.

I've repeatedly targeted Trump supporters with endless posts. If this was literally interpreted, I'd be considered to be a bully. Well maybe I am, but I don't think of myself as one

 

[danieldemol]

I strongly disagree with part1 about catering to the offended just because they happen to be in the majority, but agree to the rest, so i’m going with strongly disagree.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I agree totally with Number 3 but Number 1 and Number 2 depend on peoples feelings simply stating that Jesus is not God upsets some, Printing their God's name upsets others. These people should stay solely in the Dir or discussion area's. In a debate thread it should be assumed you may be upset or offended and it is not bullying or trolling. In debating I sometimes try to get a rise out of someone to prove a point.

Although I voted 1, what you say is actually quite interesting, and I wonder how Rule 3 can be adapted to accomodate your concern.

I generally don't think trolling and bullying are good things, which explains my vote, but I also think that it cannot be considered "bullying" to express a viewpoint which is generally debated. And it cannot be denied that in philosophical and academic circles, the divinity of Jesus, or the historicity or literal truth of the Bible, Qur'an and other texts is and has been debated for a long time.

 

[epronovost]

Part one is problematic, but the rest of the rules important. I would also like to point out that this rule is vulnerable to the way its being applied. For example, if I say "abortion is murder", have I breached rule number 2 and/or 3? If I say "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest". Have I breached the rule? Is it applied consistently and fairly?

 

[PureX]

It's a somewhat vague "rule" as it's inevitably going to be subjectively defined and applied relative to specific interactions. But I don't really see how that can be avoided. And as long as the people imposing the rules are being moderate and reasonable about it, it will work out fine.

The thing that really matters, here, I think, is who you are choosing to interpret and apply the rules, not so much what the rules are, themselves. And so far, from what I have seen, the managers are doing a very good job.

 

[Secret Chief]

Strongly agree. But of course the devil is in the interpretation and administration.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Although I voted 1, what you say is actually quite interesting, and I wonder how Rule 3 can be adapted to accomodate your concern.

I generally don't think trolling and bullying are good things, which explains my vote, but I also think that it cannot be considered "bullying" to express a viewpoint which is generally debated. And it cannot be denied that in philosophical and academic circles, the divinity of Jesus, or the historicity or literal truth of the Bible, Qur'an and other texts is and has been debated for a long time.

I had to change my vote, because the options in the OP were not in the same order as the options in the poll itself. So in fact, I voted 5 "strongly agree."

 

[Heyo]

I mostly agree. In fact I agree with all points but it is all in the interpretation. I don't know how this could be worded less vague or if it could be done at all nor if it should be done. There has to be some wiggle room.

 

[Revoltingest]

OPTION ONE: I strongly agree with the statement.

OPTION TWO: I mostly agree with the statement.

OPTION THREE: I neither agree nor disagree with the statement.

OPTION FOUR: I mostly disagree with the statement.

OPTION FIVE: I strongly disagree with the statement.

The order of the poll questions doesn't align with the post.
I mistakenly picked the first to strongly agree,
then I noticed that I was strongly disagreeing.
I now strongly agree. That was a close one!

Would the rule mean that people shouldn't be using "libtard",
"deplorable", "the usual suspects", "boot lickers" & other such
epithets to insult groups & posters in (or accused of being in) them?
I think it should.

 

[Revoltingest]

I had to change my vote, because the options in the OP were not in the same order as the options in the poll itself. So in fact, I voted 5 "strongly agree."

You're as careless as I am?
You should be deeply ashamed.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Once again, I find myself having to strongly disagree with a statement saying that a rule, in this case Rule 3, is reasonable. My rationale:
(a) Right up front, I readily agree that, if the mission of RF is to promote civil, informative exchanges of information between members then, I strongly agree that "Unacceptable behaviors and content include" the three things listed. However, IMO,

• What if the content is itself prima facie evidence to the target of the content that the OP is, from the get-go, needlessly offensive?

• E.g. A Jehovah's Witness starts a thread addressed to Jews that opens with the question: Why did Jews reject Jesus as their Messiah?
  • Now, I realize that one kind of has to have a clue in order to recognize the needless offense in it, but I'm a non-JW Christian and I'm telling you that that kind of question has "offense" emblazoned on it from the thread title to the last post of the OP's author. The clueless, of course, will never recognize the offense.
• E.g. A Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness starts a thread addressed to Trinitarian Christians inviting the latter's attempt to explain and justify the Doctrine of the Trinity.
  • The clueless, again, will fail to appreciate the offense in the post. What offense, they will ask, can there be in a civil request for a persuasive presentation of the Doctrine of the Trinity?
  • Only when someone points out that, in the 170+ years since their beginnings in the U.S., the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Latter-Day-Saints have pretty much scripted their arguments against the Doctrine of the Trinity and have a decent handle on their positions, can anyone begin to see "a clue". In other words, their very first post is about at civil as the lawyer's question to the defendant: "So, when did you stop being your wife?" They initiate a debate over a controversial subject matter with no intent to be informed or persuaded to change their minds in the slightest. They have but one goal, and it's to offend.
• So, when is an offense an offense? When a minority or a majority see it and call it for what it is?

• Does someone want "to redeem" Rule 3. Section 1 Require background checks. If a background check confirms that a poster had good cause and reason to know that their post was offensive, ding 'em or whack 'em, but don't let it slide.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I think it should.

I dunno: I kinda like "boot lickers". It has a certain je ne sais quoi to it.