Wow, I go away for a few days and the Gestapo takes over. Seriously guys, while I applaud any attempt to up our collective game, this seems a bit (way?) over the top. I'm going to take a wack at a civil response here (even though it's been made clear that our collective input on "the rules" is not welcome), just because I'm thinking there might be some iota of reasonableness underneath what, at first blush, appears to be extreme heavy-handedness. And perhaps, as I take the time to do this, I will become enlightened a bit and understand the true value of this apparently excessive change.
So, I present, fwiw, my perspective. Since I can't reply to the thread directly (nice), I just copy/pasted it here so formatting is a bit rough. No comment means agreeance.....and I never thought I'd say this, but where is Buzz these days?
1. No gratuitous personal attacks. We are all adults, and criticism is allowed, but every effort should be made to direct criticism toward the content of the post and not the character of the poster.
2.No trolling or flame-baiting. These are posts which are not necessarily directed as personal attacks against a specific poster, but are clearly designed to elicit such a response.
>> A rule that appears to be based upon inferring the intent of a post. My recommendation would be to start small -- have rules based upon the actual content that could be objectively applied before getting into this very subjective perspective. There are several other that appear to have a similar angle, and to me that's a major issue.
3.No ad hominems. Do not dismiss an argument simply because of who is making it. This includes dismissing arguments because the person making them belongs to a certain community. This rule does not apply to specific criticism that a poster's source is unreliable, so long as the claim that said source is unreliable can be reasonably defended.
>> Not quite so subjective, but still there. Ideas like "reasonable defended" are very subjective. This is a rule written by a lawyer (not too many folks use latin in day to day conversation) -- it starts with a statement, extends it beyond it's initial scope, and then makes an exception. And there's many more rules to follow.....
4.No copypasta. Quoting your sources is fine. Even having it as the majority of your post can be fine. But make sure to always include your own individual comments on whatever you are sharing. If the entire purpose of your post is to share content created by someone else for general interest or comment (that is, if you don't really have anything to add, but want to share it, anyway), that's fine, but please include a link to the original content, so that other posters may examine the original.
>> Again....this translates to "don't do this oh, I guess it's ok, so long as you share your source" Really?
5.No plagiarism. This should be self-explanatory. This is related to Rule 4 in the sense that, if your main purpose is to share the content created by someone else, they deserve proper credit, and you should provide a link to the original.
6.No non-responsive responses. If you are going to respond to someone's post, have the decency to respond to what they actually said. Don't move the goalposts. Don't create strawmen. This prohibition does not apply to benign parentheticals that don't merit a new thread, such as, “As an aside, that was a great movie,” so long as such posts don't take over the board. Also, this rule should in no way discourage posters from moving threads in new and related directions that expand the discussion in a topical manner, and which are not couched in the terms of a “non-responsive response.”
>> Wow, and now we get subjective and complicated all at once. We have the rule, then the extensions to the rule, then the exceptions to the extensions, which are also subjective ("benign"). And who is it that writes most of our laws and regulations? But the exception only stands so long as it doesn't happen too much, unless it is properly "couched". Can we setup an appellate court system to argue the decisions?
7.No deleting or editing your own posts without proper notice. If you go back and edit a post, other than immediately after posting it, it is polite to note why you have edited it, such as for grammar or spelling, or to add links. Under no circumstances should you edit your posts to remove content that has subsequently been attacked simply to avoid having to defend your positions. Take your lumps if you mess up.
>> Why do you care if I edit a post? We now have a rule that is based upon enforcing "politeness"? Do we really care if somebody edits a post and it makes respondents arguments look disingenuous? The only person who really would notice that is the poster....whatever.
8.No disclaiming the burden of proof. There is nothing inherently wrong with making conjecture, appealing to common sense or stating personal opinions, even if you don't have evidence at hand. However, if someone challenges an unfounded proposition, do not demand evidence for their challenge if you cannot provide evidence for your original claim. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. The burden of proof is on the poster making the claim.
>> Stop with the friggin latin. Can we have a rule that all rules have to be in English or at least understood by somebody who isn't a lawyer? BTW, I like the logic of this, even if I only partially understand it.
9.No excessive vulgarity. We've never needed to have rules against foul language here, but just remember to be responsible about it.
>> Define "excessive"
10.No dominating the forum. If the place is slow, please liven it up. But if you notice the top ten threads on the forum were all started by you, and all within the past 12 hours, maybe it's time to slow down.
>> If somebody were to do a count of the most frequent posters on this board over the past 30 days, I know who I'd nominate to be in the top 2.....
11.Moderation: Reporting. If you think a post violates the rules, you may use the reporting system provided by Rivals to make sure the mods are made aware. Please do not follow a bad post with a worse one. If you can't keep yourself from following another poster into the gutter, simply report the post and keep silent.
>> Controlling much?
12.Moderation: Deletions. The default action by the mods for any rules violation will be to delete the offending post. The mods may send a message to the poster explaining the deletion, especially if the violation was severe enough to warrant further action, but this is not a guarantee. In the rare case that a post is an exceptionally valuable post, the mods may, at their discretion, simply edit out the offending material, leaving the bulk of the post. This is very time-consuming, so don't count on it. Deletions and edits do not count as official warnings.
>> If you take on the responsibility, take it all on. You take action, have the civility to let folks know you did it and why you did it.
13.Moderation: Warnings. In the case of repeated or extreme violations of the rules, the mods may send the offending poster an official warning. Only the mods and the offending poster will be aware of this action. Warnings will expire after six months.
>> I work for a systems integration firm -- would you like some help building a system to track warnings and expiration dates?
14.Moderation: Vacations. In the case a poster accumulates more than three warnings at any point in time, the mods will begin issuing increasingly longer vacations to the poster if the behavior continues after the third warning. The first vacation will be a 24-hour “Cool-down” period. The second will be a week. The third will be a month. Please note the generosity of this system; on the basketball forums, the first vacation usually comes after only one warning, and is usually two weeks long.
>> Now I know you need a tracking system. And isn't the use of the word "vacation" a bit cute? I like selling how reasonable all of this around about rule 14.
15.Moderation: Blacklists. If a poster, having already served a third (month-long) vacation, continues violating the rules, that poster will be blacklisted permanently.
>> Adam Smith disagrees
16.Moderation: Appeals. Warnings and vacations can only be appealed to the individual mod who issued them. That mod will either rule on the appeal or refer the matter to the rest of the mods for a vote. Mods will never unilaterally undo the decisions made by other mods; don't even try. However, if you genuinely feel a mod is treating you unfairly, you may contact one of the other mods; they will not undo whatever action you have a problem with, but they will discuss your concerns with the other mods. Permanent blacklists may be appealed to any mod, and will only remain a permanent ban if the mods are unanimous; in the case of a dissenting mod, the ban will be reduced to one month.
>> Are you sure you covered all the bases here? What happens if a mod takes a vacation but they are the one who, prior to the vacation, issued the injunction? In that case, do I get to appeal to a non-vacationing mod? And, if it's against my religion to take a vacation but I get one anyway, do I have the right to assert higher authority so I don't have to violate my religious beliefs?
17.Moderation: Expedited bans. The following sins can result in an immediate permanent ban:
1.Posting spam.
2.Threats.
3.Posting personal information of other posters without their permission.
4.Putting Water Cooler mods on your ignore list. Sorry if you don't like us, but you need to be able to see what we post.
>> o.k., very controlling
5.Posting under more than one handle.
>> any chance we can make this one retroactive?
6.Mods' discretion. Because no set of rules captures every situation, the mods may, upon a unanimous vote, permanently ban a poster for any other reason. In the application of this rule, the offending poster will always be given the opportunity to leave the Cooler voluntarily, in order to retain his or her posting privileges elsewhere on the site.
>> catch 22...even after 17 rules, one with sub-parts, and lots of exceptions, it becomes extremely subjective.
18.Moderation: Moderators. Your moderators are Cajun54 (cajun54@sbcglobal.net), NPT (nealpt2000-peegs@yahoo.com), and TheOriginalHappyGoat (otfhof@gmail.com).
So, I present, fwiw, my perspective. Since I can't reply to the thread directly (nice), I just copy/pasted it here so formatting is a bit rough. No comment means agreeance.....and I never thought I'd say this, but where is Buzz these days?
1. No gratuitous personal attacks. We are all adults, and criticism is allowed, but every effort should be made to direct criticism toward the content of the post and not the character of the poster.
2.No trolling or flame-baiting. These are posts which are not necessarily directed as personal attacks against a specific poster, but are clearly designed to elicit such a response.
>> A rule that appears to be based upon inferring the intent of a post. My recommendation would be to start small -- have rules based upon the actual content that could be objectively applied before getting into this very subjective perspective. There are several other that appear to have a similar angle, and to me that's a major issue.
3.No ad hominems. Do not dismiss an argument simply because of who is making it. This includes dismissing arguments because the person making them belongs to a certain community. This rule does not apply to specific criticism that a poster's source is unreliable, so long as the claim that said source is unreliable can be reasonably defended.
>> Not quite so subjective, but still there. Ideas like "reasonable defended" are very subjective. This is a rule written by a lawyer (not too many folks use latin in day to day conversation) -- it starts with a statement, extends it beyond it's initial scope, and then makes an exception. And there's many more rules to follow.....
4.No copypasta. Quoting your sources is fine. Even having it as the majority of your post can be fine. But make sure to always include your own individual comments on whatever you are sharing. If the entire purpose of your post is to share content created by someone else for general interest or comment (that is, if you don't really have anything to add, but want to share it, anyway), that's fine, but please include a link to the original content, so that other posters may examine the original.
>> Again....this translates to "don't do this oh, I guess it's ok, so long as you share your source" Really?
5.No plagiarism. This should be self-explanatory. This is related to Rule 4 in the sense that, if your main purpose is to share the content created by someone else, they deserve proper credit, and you should provide a link to the original.
6.No non-responsive responses. If you are going to respond to someone's post, have the decency to respond to what they actually said. Don't move the goalposts. Don't create strawmen. This prohibition does not apply to benign parentheticals that don't merit a new thread, such as, “As an aside, that was a great movie,” so long as such posts don't take over the board. Also, this rule should in no way discourage posters from moving threads in new and related directions that expand the discussion in a topical manner, and which are not couched in the terms of a “non-responsive response.”
>> Wow, and now we get subjective and complicated all at once. We have the rule, then the extensions to the rule, then the exceptions to the extensions, which are also subjective ("benign"). And who is it that writes most of our laws and regulations? But the exception only stands so long as it doesn't happen too much, unless it is properly "couched". Can we setup an appellate court system to argue the decisions?
7.No deleting or editing your own posts without proper notice. If you go back and edit a post, other than immediately after posting it, it is polite to note why you have edited it, such as for grammar or spelling, or to add links. Under no circumstances should you edit your posts to remove content that has subsequently been attacked simply to avoid having to defend your positions. Take your lumps if you mess up.
>> Why do you care if I edit a post? We now have a rule that is based upon enforcing "politeness"? Do we really care if somebody edits a post and it makes respondents arguments look disingenuous? The only person who really would notice that is the poster....whatever.
8.No disclaiming the burden of proof. There is nothing inherently wrong with making conjecture, appealing to common sense or stating personal opinions, even if you don't have evidence at hand. However, if someone challenges an unfounded proposition, do not demand evidence for their challenge if you cannot provide evidence for your original claim. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. The burden of proof is on the poster making the claim.
>> Stop with the friggin latin. Can we have a rule that all rules have to be in English or at least understood by somebody who isn't a lawyer? BTW, I like the logic of this, even if I only partially understand it.
9.No excessive vulgarity. We've never needed to have rules against foul language here, but just remember to be responsible about it.
>> Define "excessive"
10.No dominating the forum. If the place is slow, please liven it up. But if you notice the top ten threads on the forum were all started by you, and all within the past 12 hours, maybe it's time to slow down.
>> If somebody were to do a count of the most frequent posters on this board over the past 30 days, I know who I'd nominate to be in the top 2.....
11.Moderation: Reporting. If you think a post violates the rules, you may use the reporting system provided by Rivals to make sure the mods are made aware. Please do not follow a bad post with a worse one. If you can't keep yourself from following another poster into the gutter, simply report the post and keep silent.
>> Controlling much?
12.Moderation: Deletions. The default action by the mods for any rules violation will be to delete the offending post. The mods may send a message to the poster explaining the deletion, especially if the violation was severe enough to warrant further action, but this is not a guarantee. In the rare case that a post is an exceptionally valuable post, the mods may, at their discretion, simply edit out the offending material, leaving the bulk of the post. This is very time-consuming, so don't count on it. Deletions and edits do not count as official warnings.
>> If you take on the responsibility, take it all on. You take action, have the civility to let folks know you did it and why you did it.
13.Moderation: Warnings. In the case of repeated or extreme violations of the rules, the mods may send the offending poster an official warning. Only the mods and the offending poster will be aware of this action. Warnings will expire after six months.
>> I work for a systems integration firm -- would you like some help building a system to track warnings and expiration dates?
14.Moderation: Vacations. In the case a poster accumulates more than three warnings at any point in time, the mods will begin issuing increasingly longer vacations to the poster if the behavior continues after the third warning. The first vacation will be a 24-hour “Cool-down” period. The second will be a week. The third will be a month. Please note the generosity of this system; on the basketball forums, the first vacation usually comes after only one warning, and is usually two weeks long.
>> Now I know you need a tracking system. And isn't the use of the word "vacation" a bit cute? I like selling how reasonable all of this around about rule 14.
15.Moderation: Blacklists. If a poster, having already served a third (month-long) vacation, continues violating the rules, that poster will be blacklisted permanently.
>> Adam Smith disagrees
16.Moderation: Appeals. Warnings and vacations can only be appealed to the individual mod who issued them. That mod will either rule on the appeal or refer the matter to the rest of the mods for a vote. Mods will never unilaterally undo the decisions made by other mods; don't even try. However, if you genuinely feel a mod is treating you unfairly, you may contact one of the other mods; they will not undo whatever action you have a problem with, but they will discuss your concerns with the other mods. Permanent blacklists may be appealed to any mod, and will only remain a permanent ban if the mods are unanimous; in the case of a dissenting mod, the ban will be reduced to one month.
>> Are you sure you covered all the bases here? What happens if a mod takes a vacation but they are the one who, prior to the vacation, issued the injunction? In that case, do I get to appeal to a non-vacationing mod? And, if it's against my religion to take a vacation but I get one anyway, do I have the right to assert higher authority so I don't have to violate my religious beliefs?
17.Moderation: Expedited bans. The following sins can result in an immediate permanent ban:
1.Posting spam.
2.Threats.
3.Posting personal information of other posters without their permission.
4.Putting Water Cooler mods on your ignore list. Sorry if you don't like us, but you need to be able to see what we post.
>> o.k., very controlling
5.Posting under more than one handle.
>> any chance we can make this one retroactive?
6.Mods' discretion. Because no set of rules captures every situation, the mods may, upon a unanimous vote, permanently ban a poster for any other reason. In the application of this rule, the offending poster will always be given the opportunity to leave the Cooler voluntarily, in order to retain his or her posting privileges elsewhere on the site.
>> catch 22...even after 17 rules, one with sub-parts, and lots of exceptions, it becomes extremely subjective.
18.Moderation: Moderators. Your moderators are Cajun54 (cajun54@sbcglobal.net), NPT (nealpt2000-peegs@yahoo.com), and TheOriginalHappyGoat (otfhof@gmail.com).
