I have read all the rules and do not see anything in there that I would consider to be new

The only difference that I see now is that they are in black and white as opposed to being "implied" as they were before.

I can appreciate that managment has to take ba stand and the rules are now plainly visible for anyone to read.

I can only state that "it feels like they came down with an "Iron Fist" in implementing them but that is only becuse of what has happened in the last little while.

If that had not happened and the rules had been drawn up and an email sent out then there would be no feeling of an underlying issue.

I personally have no problem with the rules as they are stated and I would welcome other comments for general interest sake.

Garry

I Second the ' I have no problem with the rules as they are stated" motion.

My only issue is the subjectivity in which decisions are made. According to the "rules" all it takes to get someone banned is complaints. There is not even any arbitration over the issue. It is a minor point and I accept the rules as they are, but one I hope the moderators consider nonetheless.

MM

This is a discussion I've seen go on endlessly in other places, and it is all smoke and mirrors, for me there is one blunt point that cuts through all the B.S. for me, and this is it:

There is no need for moderation, no need for accountability... this is NOT a public place, it is a private one, we are invited here as party guests and can be turfed out at the host's discretion. You didn't pay money to be here. You can't sue if they kick you out. Every forum member here could unionize and try to force the admin to do something, and it would mean nothing unless the admin felt like helping us out... we have no power and no right to any power.

There is only one rule that matters. Don't tick off the host. If the host says "These are the guidelines for not ticking off the host", follow them, and you can stay at the party indefinitely. :cool:

I think it is important to realize that this is a Private board.

It does not have all power.
It does not have bottomless funding.
It does not command resources.
It does not have the power of "enforcement" to compell anyone to "behave."

So they reserve the right to be as arbitrary as those they let in the door. They do not self-restrict themselves from confronting the libertine powers that those coming through the "door" can exercise. I don't think that is wrong!

It is a nice place to meet, without charge for most of us, as GUESTS of someone else.

There is nothing about this "board" that has to do with RIGHTS, except the RIGHTS of those who own the board!

The Rest of us are unpaying SQUATTERS! We're priviledged to have somewhere to come that is kept by any standard, clean and kind and friendly and usable!

That is my Constitutional point of view, worth what you paid for it! And twice as dear to me!

Well written and right to the point there Paul!!!!!!

There is only one rule that matters. Don't tick off the host. If the host says "These are the guidelines for not ticking off the host", follow them, and you can stay at the party indefinitely.


I like that cuase I like this party

Good point, Paul. I have to admit that I did not think of it that way, but it makes sense. As I said before, however, I agree to follow the rules, but that does not mean I have to feel comfortable with them. I can go to a party and enjoy the other guests, while at the same time be concerned with how I am at the whim of the host/hostess as to how long I can stay. Because at that point I am so concerned with appeasing the host and other guests any opportunity for honest discussion is obliterated. My point is quodlibetic and emotive, but nonetheless still valid.

My concern in a nutshell is this: how can we have honest, open and sometimes argumentative discussion(s) without a more objective-based set of rules?

MM

Originally posted by Paul S
This is a discussion I've seen go on endlessly in other places, and it is all smoke and mirrors, for me there is one blunt point that cuts through all the B.S. for me, and this is it:

There is no need for moderation, no need for accountability... this is NOT a public place, it is a private one, we are invited here as party guests and can be turfed out at the host's discretion. You didn't pay money to be here. You can't sue if they kick you out. Every forum member here could unionize and try to force the admin to do something, and it would mean nothing unless the admin felt like helping us out... we have no power and no right to any power.

There is only one rule that matters. Don't tick off the host. If the host says "These are the guidelines for not ticking off the host", follow them, and you can stay at the party indefinitely. :cool:

Originally posted by MightyMouse
My concern in a nutshell is this: how can we have honest, open and sometimes argumentative discussion(s) without a more objective-based set of rules?
The role of the Moderators, Super Moderators and Site Administrators is a simple one to describe, and a not-so-simple one to perform: Establish and maintain a civilized and friendly environment within which all Forum members live by some very simple and basic rules.

There is nothing within the rules that prevent any Forum member from having "honest, open and sometimes argumentative discussion(s)".

I suspect that you may be looking for a set of rules that clearly spell out under which exact and precise conditions a Moderator, Super Moderator or Admin will take action. The rules and guidelines we've provided so far have been created out of necessity, and cover the situations that we've been able to quantify, to date. It is near impossible to predict, ahead of time, every single possible scenario which might violate the rules and guidelines of this Forum. The intent was not to write Penal Law, but rather, to provide a "framework of civility".

There are plenty of Forums on the Internet that have little or no rules, guidelines or moderation. Some people enjoy complete anarchy. That's not what this Forum is about, nor will it be tolerated.

To ensure that rules and guidelines are enforced fairly, there are a more stringent set of rules for Moderators, Super Moderators and Admins as well.

Responsibilities:

Moderators may moderate posts within their designated forums, and enforce the Forum rules and guidelines. Should a serious enough infraction take place, they will work with a Moderator or Super Moderator, and perhaps involve an Admin, in deciding how to handle that particular situation. Moderators must maintain a detailed record of the situation, and reasons for taking such action. Moderators have the responsibility to enforce the rules and guidelines.

Super Moderators may moderate posts anywhere within the forums, and enforce the Forum rules and guidelines. Should a serious enough infraction take place, they will work with an Admin, in deciding how to handle that particular situation. Super Moderators must maintain a detailed record of the situation, and reasons for taking such action. Super Moderators have the responsibility to enforce the rules and guidelines.

Moderators, Super Moderators and Site Administrators are here to make sure this place remains an enjoyable forum for "honest, open and sometimes argumentative discussion(s)" - within the framework of some very basic rules and guidelines.

If you wish to contest a decision made by a Moderator or Super Moderator, you may contact the Site Administrators.