Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan

Make the Rules


Bravus

Recommended Posts

Now, if I may be so bold as to switch gears back to the original subject of this thread . . .

I propose that the regrettable episode which we all have witnessed here UNDERSCORES the need for rules, and for those rules to be enforced. Stan, I wish to formally propose the adoption of the three simple rules I mentioned last night:

1) No personal attacks;

2) No libel;

3) No profanity or obscenity.

Leave the rest to freedom of expression and self-policing. How about it, Stan?

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 405
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Woody

    58

  • bonnie

    57

  • David Koot

    51

  • CyberGuy

    43

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

By the time you respond to this, I will be off the board and in bed....

Please......drop it....

PS...I g ot the last word in! surrender

gah

Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be conitnuing "dialog" on this but it shouldn't bother you overmuch.

If you are referring to your personal conflict, and that you intend to continue pursuing it here, if you do so, I will continue to object and demand that it stop, here, and will continue to appeal for intervention from administration. The whole thing is out of line and inappropriate here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think we need more rules than that. For example, what happens when threads get de-railed? Is there to be no recourse of action?

I understand about that, Cricket, but I also understand what Stan is saying about having few rules. Perhaps the forum could self-police and deal with that issue. Sometimes, it is a delicate task I think. In the end, it will depend on the civility and moderation of the participants. Without that, the whole thing will be a wash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah there are de-rails. Disgusting. But seems to me that an old personal fight was what de-railed it. Under the basic rules proposed, those posts would have been edited and the personal fight stopped here, long before it escalated as it has. (And I SINCERELY hope it has STOPPED!!) I still like Bravus' idea about a steel cage forum for those who want to fight it out. But anyway, that would be one way of avoiding de-railings.

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really interested in "what" de-railed the thread. The fact of the matter is that the thread was de-railed. And yes, under new rules and new enforcing of such rules, the de-rail would have been edited or moved to a different thread/area.

Which of the three rules you've proposed would be the one to govern such a de-rail?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one dealing with personal attacks. But aside from that, one other thought is that of discretionary decisions on the part of moderators, based on circumstances and the wishes of participants perhaps??? if someone posts 'off-topic.' I would hesitate to try to micromanage a thread. That is a sure death sentence for a forum. You need to have freedom of expression. Another potential problem is that what one sees as 'de-railing' could be seen by others as relevant. Not as cut-and-dried as identifying personal attacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really interested in "what" de-railed the thread. The fact of the matter is that the thread was de-railed. And yes, under new rules and new enforcing of such rules, the de-rail would have been edited or moved to a different thread/area.

Which of the three rules you've proposed would be the one to govern such a de-rail?

Umm, Maybe #1--no personal attacks?? I still like the ones that Bravus put together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok the whole point was to point out that this kind thing does happen. I do think the proposal to ban for life anyone who makes trouble to ones employor for something that happens on the forum should be banned for life. Granted in the future not for something that happened in the past.

Our whole purpose here is to look at the past and see what has happened in the past and how we can prevent this from happening to ANYONE else. After all others it appears have had this threatened or it looked like it was implied in any case.

Sorry I did not mean for Bonnie to come over to make a scene but I guess I half expected it to happen anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that in this particular instance, it may have fallen under the rule regarding "no personal attacks." However, not all thread de-rails will come under "no personal attacks." And when the decision for action falls on the shoulders of the forum moderator, this is when most issues with moderation occur. A clearer definition of rules--ones that are made available for all to see--will help to minimize the arguing when moderators do implement disciplinary action with a thread/post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, if I may be so bold as to switch gears back to the original subject of this thread . . .

I propose that the regrettable episode which we all have witnessed here UNDERSCORES the need for rules, and for those rules to be enforced. Stan, I wish to formally propose the adoption of the three simple rules I mentioned last night:

1) No personal attacks;

2) No libel;

3) No profanity or obscenity.

Leave the rest to freedom of expression and self-policing. How about it, Stan?

Dave

To Vague. What constitutes a personal attack?

No Libel of course but what is Libel. Seems as if the libel against me was believed to be true by the one who libeled me. Hard to convince that person otherwise.

No profanity or obsenity. That is clear enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: CyberGuy
To Vague. What constitutes a personal attack?

I am borrowing here from the "four corners" rule, which is that in interpreting a contract, the parties are limited to what appears within the four corners of the document. Quite simply, a 'personal attack' could be quite easily identified by reliance on the words as they appear, with their common denoted meaning.

Quote:

No Libel of course but what is Libel. Seems as if the libel against me was believed to be true by the one who libeled me. Hard to convince that person otherwise.

But that would be immaterial. 'Libel' would be as generally defined. For example, libel per se, automatically prohibited, which includes accusations of:

1) having committed an infamous crime;

2) having a loathsome disease;

3) committing immoral acts;

4) Dishonesty in business;

5) Inability to perform his/her profession.

I need not remind you, CyberGuy, that if you or anyone has been accused of such, it certainly would be worth exploring options for legal remedies. Sounds like such accusations have been bandied about.

Dave

Yes I agree but at the time I honestly did not think it would go that far. Next Time I am prepared to take legal action. I will not be turning the other cheek next time. Hopefully there will not be a next time. I think that notice has been served and a word to the wise will be enough.

Still We should make this forum safe for church workers to come and discuss topics with us and not have them looking over their shoulder for fear of some disgruntled forum member making trouble for them at their place of employment on some charge true or not.

If it is not safe for church workers they will not come here or at least will not let the forum know they are church workers or not join in any controversal topic.

IS that what we want?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am borrowing here from the "four corners" rule, which is that in interpreting a contract, the parties are limited to what appears within the four corners of the document. Quite simply, a 'personal attack' could be quite easily identified by reliance on the words as they appear, with their common denoted meaning.

Twenty-three rules would fit within four corners of a document too. There's no need for limiting to only three rules. I still maintain that a clearer definition of rules will work best so that everyone--moderators, administrators, members and "lurkers" alike--has a better understanding of what is acceptable and what will help to make this forum a civilized, safe, and enjoyable place for discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
Because what this thread is about making rules, not about your flagrantly telling everyone about your outing Bruce...You have hijacked this thread, a clear violation of internet protocall, let alone an understood rule on C/A.

NOW it is a "rule" abiding time? When I mentioned something about the rules, I was told they are not in effect and so it can continue until the rules are set in place.

How is that so right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
Because what this thread is about making rules, not about your flagrantly telling everyone about your outing Bruce...You have hijacked this thread, a clear violation of internet protocall, let alone an understood rule on C/A.

NOW it is a "rule" abiding time? When I mentioned something about the rules, I was told they are not in effect and so it can continue until the rules are set in place.

How is that so right?

We are trying to set up groundwork for possible new rules. It is just dicussion right now. Birthpains if the best way to describe it.

Right now we just discussing what rules may work and what rules should be discarded and how to clarify the rules. Give it time. This could take a few days or even weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Twenty-three rules would fit within four corners of a document too. There's no need for limiting to only three rules. I still maintain that a clearer definition of rules will work best so that everyone--moderators, administrators, members and "lurkers" alike--has a better understanding of what is acceptable and what will help to make this forum a civilized, safe, and enjoyable place for discussion.

The problem is that with the some of the proposed rules, as I followed the discussion on this and another thread, they could easily be matters of personal interpretation, going far beyond the simple question of personal attacks. Implementation of some of the proposed rules could easily result in 'squelching' discussion or of forcing a 'mold' upon the forum and those who participate. 23 is WAY too many rules to be practicable. And some of those proposed rules are REALLY, REALLY vague and would open the door for abuse of the rules and the forum.

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Slander and libel are clearly wrong..

AS IS

Doing things that push people to do that..

Are you defending Slander and Libel?

There can be NO EXCUSE for it EVER. Those that resort to it can never be trusted again. It will be in the back of everyones mind when they deal with that person. Will she do that to me if I get on her bad side?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing things that push people to do that..

That certainly does sound like a possible justification of defamation. It suggests that an innocent party who has been victimized by slander, for example, is somehow at fault. That is in the same category as telling someone who is physically abused in a relationship that it is 'her fault.' Physical abuse is never justified. Libel is never justified. Any hint otherwise can open the door to wrongful behaviors, serious damage and very significant legal liability. By definition, slander and libel are false. There is no excuse for engaging in such. They are a perversion of truth, and they are horribly destructive. They are actionable per se. There is no excuse for committing defamation. It is so often the case that the one who is defaming someone else, twists and distorts the facts, and that the one defamed has acted in good faith. Character assassination is not justified. It is far better to stop making excuses for someone who does so, and instead hold him or her accountable for such wrongful actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
Those that resort to it can never be trusted again. It will be in the back of everyones mind when they deal with that person. Will she do that to me if I get on her bad side?

That is why WE need to have in the back of OUR MINDS the positive aspects of the rules....Rule #1- have fun. Is it fun for all or just you? Do you enjoy chewing someone out when they say something that pushes your buttons? If so, perhaps you need to take a break from the board....for a day or two...

Remember, what you post up here is NOT about telling the other person off/how to live/who God truely is....what you post up here is revealing yourself....

And do you really want everyone to know just how easily you can get ticked off when someone says sumtin stupid?

Educate, Educate, Educate....is my new motto for this thread....

[i wonder, am I begining to sound like Ed?]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...