Proposed forum rules (old version)

[hyperdeath]

Mod edit 6 Jan 2013: This thread is old like whoa. It's locked now, since we've probably had a million other threads discussing rules changes since this.

The first draft of the general forum rules is as follows. Comments and suggestions are welcome.


Acceptable conduct

Harassment is prohibited: Offensive comments based on race, nationality, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical appearance, mental health or disability are prohibited. Vigorous criticism of religious belief is permitted, but offensive comments based on religious identity are prohibited.

Don't use insults that target a group: Many insults are hurtful to those besides the target. Slurs such as "cunt", "retarded", "she looks like a man" or "he's probably autistic" imply that the female body, disabled people, transsexual people or autistic people are inherently contemptible or amusing. All slurs that use an entire group of people as a pejorative are prohibited.

Provide forewarning of disturbing content: Disturbing stories or graphic imagery can induce flashbacks or panic attacks in some people. Whenever such content is posted, it must always be preceded with a clear warning.

Swearing is permitted: Bad language is permitted, subject to other content guidelines.

Stick the flounce: If you flounce from a thread, by angrily announcing that you're leaving or giving up, you should not post on that thread again.

If you're looking for a fight, go elsewhere: If you despise atheism plus and everything it stands for, then this isn't the forum for you. If you're looking for robust debate then please go ahead. If you just want to pick a fight, then you're not wanted here.


Handling disagreement

Try to assume good faith at first: When a seemingly unpleasant person arrives on the forum, the principle of charity should always apply. Wherever possible, ignorance should be assumed before malice. Similarly, questions should be treated as genuine requests for information, rather than disingenuous rhetoric. In general, a poster should be allowed three attempts at making their case, before bad faith can be assumed.

Don't carry hostility between threads: If someone is behaving unpleasantly in one thread, but posts a sensible comment to another thread, they should not be treated with hostility in that second conversation. Carrying hostility between threads disrupts conversations. It can also look dreadful to casual lurkers, who see an apparently helpful poster being attacked without reason.

Don't import hostility to the forum: If a user has behaved badly elsewhere, but posts only sensible comments here, these comments should not be greeted with hostility. As with carrying arguments between threads, importing hostility is disruptive, and looks dreadful to outsiders.

Civility guidelines are not an excuse for bad behaviour: The above rules are guidelines for dealing with the majority of cases. They are not absolute laws, and they are certainly not excuses to hide behind. If there is no reasonable explanation for a post besides malice, then it is not necessary to pretend otherwise. If someone endlessly brings up the same refuted argument in multiple threads, then engaging them straight away may be justified. If someone with an atrocious reputation from elsewhere asks slippery but plausibly innocent questions, then it may be reasonable to assume dishonesty.


Arguments to avoid

Many arguments come up time and time again, and generally serve to aggravate rather than enlighten. They can be made without ill-intent, but they will often be received very badly. A list of ill-advised arguments is given below. If you wish to dispute these points, you should do so in a general sense, and not in a thread about a specific incident.

Don't say "don't feed the trolls": There are many reasons why responding to a deliberately provocative comment is the right thing to do. For example, it may be necessary to refute a believable lie or to challenge a particular prejudice. Replying to a thoughtful rebuttal with that tedious cliché is patronizing, and dismisses other people's concerns as unimportant. Bear in mind that what may appear to be trivial insults to you, may be deeply hurtful comments to someone else.

Don't lecture women on staying safe: (This still needs to be written)

Don't blame the victim: (This still needs to be written)

Don't say "not all X are like that": When someone complains about a serious problem, it is rarely helpful to complain that the scope of the problem has not been delineated with mathematical precision. For example, if someone gives an account of sexual harassment, replying with “not all men are like that” gives the impression that you care more about being vaguely implicated, than you do about the actual harassment.

Don't joke about prison rape: No one deserves to be raped, including prison inmates. Rape is a despicable act, regardless of context.

Don't be pedantic about the word "troll": The word "troll" has multiple definitions, including an obnoxious and disruptive poster. Insisting upon pedantic definitions, based on the word's origin, is not a helpful contribution to discussions about disruptive posters.

Don't conflate social awkwardness with obnoxiousness: Having poor social skills and behaving like a jerk are completely different things. The former can sometimes inadvertently lead to the latter, but the two are not intrinsically linked. Someone can be kind and considerate, but at the same time be poor at picking up social cues and appear shy and awkward in conversation. Similarly, a high functioning sociopath can be socially adept, but will use these skills to hurt and manipulate. Linking the two is offensive to awkward people who don’t behave like jerks, and provides an illegitimate excuse to those who deliberately behave like jerks.

Don't conflate autistic spectrum conditions with obnoxiousness: Having an autistic spectrum condition is not the same as being a jerk. For the same reasons as above, conflating the two is deeply offensive.

Don't counter disparagement of physical appearance with compliments: If a person is taunted with abuse based on their physical appearance, it is tempting to reassure them with a warm compliment. This is perfectly understandable, but it can reinforce the prejudice behind the original insult. It implies that the abuse would have been justified, had the person been less attractive.

Don't defend insulting language: If people take offence to a particular slur, then it is best to graciously withdraw it, and rephrase your argument. Remember that what may be a matter of semantics to you, may be a matter of dehumanisation versus acceptance for someone else.

Don't dismiss people's problems by appealing to greater problems: For almost every problem, it is possible to find a substantially worse problem. This should not be used, however, to dismiss the original problem. For example, the plight of women under the Taliban is absolutely dreadful, but this doesn't mean that any problem faced by a western woman is trivial

Don't change the topic to less severe problems: If a particular problem is being discussed, it is dismissive to generalise this into a conversation about less severe problems. Such problems may also be very important, but they should be discussed elsewhere. For example, a discussion about female genital mutilation should not degenerate into a debate about the morality of male circumcision.


Screen names and privacy

Maintain a consistent identity: You should either post under your real name, or under a consistent pseudonym. Minor modifications to your pseudonym are permitted, so long the relationship to the old version is clear. If you have any kind of online presence in the atheist or skeptic community, then you must either use your real name, or the same pseudonym.

No impersonation: Impersonating other people is prohibited. You should not use a pseudonym that includes the name of a real person, unless it is obvious that you are not that person.

No sockpuppetry: Creating more than one identity, and using these identities to create the illusion of support, or to provide straw opponents, is prohibited. Use of a secondary identity is permitted under exceptional circumstances, such as revealing a distressing personal story.

Respect privacy: People have the right to privacy and anonymity (subject to the following exceptions). Unless you have someone's permission, it is not permitted to divulge their real name, home address, telephone number, email address, or any other form of contact information.

This is a proposed policy only:
Threat makers have no right to privacy: If someone threatens violence, then they have forfeited their right to privacy. We reserve the right to reveal all identifying information.

This is a proposed policy only:
Hackers have no right to privacy: If someone attempts to gain illicit access to the forum, or attempts to electronically attack it, then they have forfeited their right to privacy. We reserve the right to reveal all identifying information.


Moderation and Banning

The forum is private property: Freedom of speech is the right to speak your mind without being persecuted. It is not an entitlement to use other people's private property to disseminate your views. As such, we reserve the right to remove comments, or to ban anyone we deem to be making a strongly negative contribution to the forum.

Violent threats will get you thrown out: Anyone who threatens or advocates an act of violence against anyone else, forum member or not, will be automatically banned.

This is a proposed policy only:
Legal threats will get you thrown out: Anyone who makes legal threats against the forum will be automatically banned.

Moderation must not misrepresent the original content: When administrators or moderators modify a user's contributions, they must do so in such a way as to not falsely attribute an opinion or a statement to that user.

[Setar]

Suggestion: Don't talk about "divisiveness".

I don't know how exactly to word it, but Caine on Pharyngula had an excellent argument.

[Flewellyn]

This seems entirely reasonable and eminently sensible.

[Marvin]

These looks like pretty good rules. (I adore "stick the flounce!") Two possible tweaks leap to mind...

One, should the rules against harassment and against insults targeting groups explicitly include religious affiliations? It's one thing to criticize religion, for instance, but another to refer to Christians as "Christbots" or religious people as "faithheads."

Two, under Arguments to Avoid -- or maybe under Moderation and Banning -- you might want a rule against rule-lawyering the moderation rules. A bit meta, perhaps, but a common troll-tactic is to invoke democracy and free speech in a sustained attack on a forum's policies, an attack which might be conducted in the politest possible language but which gains momentum over time, riles up new people, etc.

[Pteryxx]

Re rule-lawyering... would a meta-rule against a meta-attack really do any good? At some point it's going to be up to moderators' judgement.

Possible suggestion: a method to appeal to a different mod? Or does that just happen anyway?

Privacy suggestion: I'd like gender to be on the list of personal information that should not be shared without permission from the person in question; and also a best practices note that individuals' preferred pronouns should be used to the best of everyone's ability.

(meta: Also the time limit on second posts seems a bit tight. Is there a way to shorten it or restrict it to, say, *a number of* posts made in rapid succession instead of just one?)

[NateHevens]

(meta: Also the time limit on second posts seems a bit tight. Is there a way to shorten it or restrict it to, say, *a number of* posts made in rapid succession instead of just one?)

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out the time limit thing. I mean, I know what purpose it serves, but as it stands now it's slightly annoying...

Like right now... I think I made the post before this over ten minutes ago, and I'm getting "you cannot make another post so soon after your last".

Really? I made that post over ten minutes ago. Define "so soon"...

I don't like that it requires a ten minute wait between each post. The wait time should be in seconds, not minutes.

[hyperdeath]

The wait is there to prevent flood attacks. I'll see what can be done, but in the meantime, I've reduced it to 5 minutes.

[Quester]

The rules sound appropriate, though in "Don't counter disparagement of physical appearance with complements", swap "complement" with "compliment".

[Pteryxx]

hyperdeath: Thanks, that's a big help. (Ten minutes was more than enough time for me to completely forget I had this window open...)

Incidentally, what's the automatic logout time for inactivity? And, what's the link limit per post?

[NateHevens]

The wait is there to prevent flood attacks. I'll see what can be done, but in the meantime, I've reduced it to 5 minutes.

Thanks.

I should note that most forums have a max limit of 60 seconds. I still feel as if any longer crosses the line from being necessary to being annoying.

[hyperdeath]

The rules sound appropriate, though in "Don't counter disparagement of physical appearance with complements", swap "complement" with "compliment".

Fixed.

[rwahrens]

Under,

The forum is private property: Freedom of speech is the right to speak your mind without being persecuted.

Should end, "...without being prosecuted by the government."

The rest of it is fine.

[Marvin]

Re rule-lawyering... would a meta-rule against a meta-attack really do any good? At some point it's going to be up to moderators' judgement.

Possible suggestion: a method to appeal to a different mod? Or does that just happen anyway?

A fair question, and it suggests I should have done a better job with my original post. To rephrase: I think it would be a good idea to establish the moderators' authority clearly in policy and to have a way of handling disagreements/complaints about moderation that takes those discussions behind the curtain, as it were. The rule about "The forum is private property" is a good start, but I think it's incomplete because it doesn't really tell users what to do and/or expect, which becomes a problem over time as focus-creep sets in.

For an example of forum rules that I think are well-done and well-implemented, I'd recommend the rules at MegaTokyo.com.) In particular:

Use the Report Button
There is a "REPORT" button next to the edit one on the top right corner of each post. If you feel that that post is breaking the rules, hit the report button, enter a legible reason, and leave it at that. Posting "Will a mod please lock this thread!?" does nothing to bring the thread to our attention.

Yes, This is the Internet, But This is Our Corner of it
While this is on the Internet, these forums are not a democracy. We have rules, and we expect them to be followed. [I.e. the "Private property" rule. -Marvin]

Take Personal Issues to PM
If you have personal issues with other users, take it to Private Messaging. If necessary, let the mods know. Threads made regarding these will be locked. The REPORT button is another alternative. [Emphasis mine. -Marvin]

Don't Repost Locked Threads
If threads get locked, they get locked for a reason - don't make new threads asking why it happened, and don't whine. Apologies are also unecessary. PM a moderator if you have to. [Emphasis mine. -Marvin]

No Forum Wars
Don't start, participate in, or encourage forum wars here or anywhere. You will be at the least temporarily banned. Use the Report button if necessary.

Take Problems With Mods to PM First.
If you have a problem with the way that a mod is behaving, discuss it with that mod in private via PM. If you feel that your complaints are still not being addressed, then take it to someone else from there. Raising the issue in a thread will not win you any points, as it is, 99.9% of the time, off topic, and derailment. In addition, courtesy when communicating with the person in question will generally get you a much nicer response. [Emphasis mine. -Marvin]

['Tis Himself]

I suggest that mods have "Moderator" posted under their names. It's obvious that Marvin is a mod of some flavor, but I have no idea if anyone else is.

['Tis Himself]

Five minutes between posts is still way too long. Make it a minute if you absolutely feel the need to slow down posting for whatever reason you think posting needs to be slowed down.

[Grimalkin]

Brilliant list of rules, particularly the list of arguments to avoid.

One very minor question;

Don't use insults that target a group: Many insults are hurtful to those besides the target. Slurs such as "cunt", "retarded", "she looks like a man" or "he's probably autistic" imply that the female body, disabled people, transsexual people or autistic people are inherently contemptible or amusing. All slurs that use an entire group of people as a pejorative are prohibited.

Does this only apply to using the words against other people, or in general? I'm tempted to assume it's the former because it would be rather hard to talk about/illustrate hateful language otherwise, but I don't want to just assume. Either way I'd specify that in the rule, if only to make it more specific and keep people from playing Cunto with it.

Also, is there any way that anyone knows of to use spoiler tags (or something similar) on these forums? The ability to hide triggering content by collapsing it under such a tag and having a rule to do so would be great.

[Pteryxx]

Also, is there any way that anyone knows of to use spoiler tags (or something similar) on these forums? The ability to hide triggering content by collapsing it under such a tag and having a rule to do so would be great.

Seconding this. Currently the BBCode spoiler tag is not in the list of enabled tags for these forums. An admin should be able to turn it on. It'd create a collapsed line with a button to click on that opens the hidden content for reading.

[spoiler]The bad words and awfulness go under here[/spoiler]

[NateHevens]

Also, is there any way that anyone knows of to use spoiler tags (or something similar) on these forums? The ability to hide triggering content by collapsing it under such a tag and having a rule to do so would be great.

Seconding this. Currently the BBCode spoiler tag is not in the list of enabled tags for these forums. An admin should be able to turn it on. It'd create a collapsed line with a button to click on that opens the hidden content for reading.

[spoiler]The bad words and awfulness go under here[/spoiler]

I'm thirding this. It would be a very strong, very good thing to have.

[Siliddar]

[spoiler=Trigger Warning: Awesome Admins]4th'd![/spoiler]

It should show up in your BBCode Edit panels

Usage:

Code: Select all

[spoiler=Trigger Warning: Awesome Admins]4th'd![/spoiler]

[Pteryxx]

There it is! Rightmost button in the Edit panel when composing a reply, just past Font colour. (Note: Noscript has to permit atheismplus.com for this to work)

[spoiler=test]Fourthing the awesome Admins![/spoiler]

[Siliddar]

Noscript has to permit atheismplus.com for this to work)

As expected.The hide/unhide of the contents of the spoiler tag is controlled by a little javascript function. Source code below for those who would prefer to know, in detail, what javascript is running:

Code: Select all

onClick="if (this.parentNode.parentNode.getElementsByTagName('div')[1].getElementsByTagName('div')[0].style.display != '')
{
this.parentNode.parentNode.getElementsByTagName('div')[1].getElementsByTagName('div')[0].style.display = '';
this.innerText = 'Hide'; this.value = 'Hide';
 } else {
this.parentNode.parentNode.getElementsByTagName('div')[1].getElementsByTagName('div')[0].style.display = 'none';
this.innerText = 'Show'; this.value = 'Show';
}

[Grimalkin]

[spoiler=Fancy spoiler tags!]Yay, spoiler tags! Now people like me who need discouragement by way of extra effort to not read triggering content have that.[/spoiler]

I also like the spoiler= thing. Nice way to specify what's triggering.

Woo awesome admins.

[NateHevens]

[spoiler=over-excitedness in having and getting to use it]Yay! Spoiler tags!

I iz happy camper...

[/spoiler]

[BillHaines]

Two-minute rule might work well between posts, at least at first.

Agree strongly on requiring clear identification of moderators, also taking any serious dispute with a mod to pm, and if unsatisfied to an admin or other similar level of the management team also by pm.

Nice job getting this up and running so quickly.

[eladnarra]

Agree strongly on requiring clear identification of moderators, also taking any serious dispute with a mod to pm, and if unsatisfied to an admin or other similar level of the management team also by pm.

It looks like mods have red names instead of blue, but an icon (or standardized title?) wouldn't hurt~

EDIT: I second some of Marvin's suggestions from the Megatokyo forums, including a bit on how to use the report button (and when).