Request a set of rules for this forum

[Sonic_95]

They're a little more laid back on this site

http://www.hvacproforums.com/misc.php?do=cfrules


Both very good sites that I have been on for years. The first link I posted - on that site they are strict as hell. they will delete your posts or edit them no questions asked.

The second link however, it's a smaller site, so they are a lot more laxed on there. We've gotten away with a lot of honeysuckle there that would NEVER go over on h-talk.... Yep, I've been a rebel on there more than once hehe

 

[cheaptrickfan]

LMAO!!! (actually I think it's from Green eggs and ham)

Everybody knows that Sam I Am was hot n' bothered.

That Sam I Am, that Sam I am... sure was a persistent little ******.

And few people know the working title: Green Eggs and One Big Fat Hard Juicy Dripping Crisp Succulent Sausage.

OH Sweet Jesus, MY EYES!! I read that to my kids.


Well, I used to...

Luke Luck likes lakes. Luke's duck likes lakes. Luke Luck licks lakes. Luck's duck licks lakes.

I liked the noodle-eating poodle and the puddle battle with the paddles.

 

[Steel]

They're a little more laid back on this site

http://www.hvacproforums.com/misc.php?do=cfrules


Both very good sites that I have been on for years. The first link I posted - on that site they are strict as hell. they will delete your posts or edit them no questions asked.

The second link however, it's a smaller site, so they are a lot more laxed on there. We've gotten away with a lot of honeysuckle there that would NEVER go over on h-talk.... Yep, I've been a rebel on there more than once hehe

I'm sadly well aware that I've been arguing against something that would make moderation of this site a hell of lot simpler. But then, I feel common sense is far more important.

 

[oarivan]

Now, clearly, the two are not the same thing. However, a forum member could point at the rule and demand the offending image be removed... because there is a rule stating that such postings are forbidden. Who is right in such a case?

Can a member at this point in time not point at a thread and deem it offending causing it to be immediately shut down? Wouldn't having a rule also protect the OP from overzealous members?

 

[iwasaloverb4thiswar]

I think a set of rules would be helpful in the following ways:
It would provide the forum members with some general parameters on what kind of behavior is acceptable which would save both time for the moderators and frustration for the forum members. For example, we recently had an episode in which a member expressed some of his less than savory ideas about race. Maybe, if that member had been aware that discussing those ideas would get him into some trouble here, he may not have been so lose-jawed. Also, had he clearly violated said hypothetical rule, the mods would have had to spend no time in banning his ass out of here immediately.

The main argument I have heard against a posted set of rules here is that mods shouldn't have to spell out what falls within " reasonable limits of expression," it should be 'common sense.' In day to day real life, I would agree with you, we all are aware of a general set of rules (and that's a stretch, really). However, people come HERE, a forum on the INTERNET for the express purpose of having an arena where the rules are lax and they can say the things, test the behavior that would otherwise have no outlet. Yes, there are plenty of places online where you can go and unload your verbal diarrhea, and if we want to have a higher standard of decorum then by all means, let's do that. However MAKE PEOPLE AWARE OF IT, let them know what they are getting into when they join. The rules are there to protect even those we may not agree with, so if you expect them to behave within your standards, a little heads up would probably go a long way.

Also, I do not think that a set of rules would in any way tie the hands of the moderators to have to unjustly punish harmless content as Steel suggests. OF COURSE rules are open for interpretation, any example of rules ever comes hand in hand with a body of people committed to making sure that those rules are applied logically in unique and individual circumstances. The moderators would still be empowered to use their judgment, and with a public set of rules to back them, they may even suffer less criticism from forum members who disagree. Also, not that I am in any way personally attacking the moderators or decisions they have made, but a public set of rules acts as a standard for all involved, including moderators. If maybe there was an overwhelming belief that a moderator was abusing their power, they too would have to answer to the rules instead forcing forum members to blindly believe that “all was handled fairly.”

It seems that the mods all agree that the policy/method in place for handling the forum and chat are good and justified. My point is, how would anyone know? With no one aware of what is or isn't allowed, how are forum members supposed to discern if the rules are being applied fairly?

For reference, this is the only terms of agreement that you are prompted with when joining the forum:

Whilst we attempt to edit or remove any messages containing inappropriate, sexually orientated, abusive, hateful, slanderous, or threatening material that could be considered invasive of a persons privacy, or which otherwise violate any kind of law, it is impossible for us to review every message posted on this discussion system. For this reason you acknowledge that all messages posted on this discussion system express the views and opinions of the original message author and not necessarily the views of this bulletin board. Therefore we take no responsibility and cannot be held liable for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy and completeness of every message.
By registering on this discussion system you agree that you will not post any material which is knowingly false, inaccurate, abusive, hateful, harassing, sexually orientated, threatening or invasive of a person's privacy, or any other material which may violate any applicable laws.
Failure to comply with these rules may result in the termination of your account, account suspension, or permanent ban of access to these forums. Your IP Address is recorded with each post you make on this discussion system and is retrievable by the forum staff if need-be. You agree that we have the ability and right to remove, edit, or lock any account or message at any time should it be seen fit. You also agree that any information you enter on this discussion system is stored in a database, and that "cookies" are stored on your computer to save your login information.
Any information you provide on these forums will not be disclosed to any third party without your complete consent, although the staff cannot be held liable for any hacking attempt in which your data is compromised.
By continuing with the sign up process you agree to the above rules and any others that the Administrator specifies.

 

[Steel]

Can a member at this point in time not point at a thread and deem it offending causing it to be immediately shut down? Wouldn't having a rule also protect the OP from overzealous members?

No. They can report a thread; if the moderator agrees that some action needs to be taken then they will obviously act as the situation warranted. For instance, if the OP was engaged in a flame war with another member then closing it would be entirely appropriate.

 

[EveWasFramed]

FYI, the person who used the racial terms had been warned previously and there had been a pattern to his posts. He was well aware, as is anyone who has been here for any amount of time, what is acceptable and what isn't. And, his terms did indeed fall under "inappropriate, abusive, hateful, slanderous.." as stated in the terms of agreement. People are warned before they are banned, via the thread/post they have posted on or, more generally, via PM.

Again, to quote the terms of use...

"any messages containing inappropriate, sexually orientated, abusive, hateful, slanderous, or threatening material that could be considered invasive of a persons privacy, or which otherwise violate any kind of law..."
"Failure to comply with these rules may result in the termination of your account, account suspension, or permanent ban of access to these forums. Your IP Address is recorded with each post you make on this discussion system and is retrievable by the forum staff if need-be. You agree that we have the ability and right to remove, edit, or lock any account or message at any time should it be seen fit."

I'm sorry...is there someone who doesn't understand the terms of use?

 

[Steel]

I think a set of rules would be helpful in the following ways:
It would provide the forum members with some general parameters on what kind of behavior is acceptable which would save both time for the moderators and frustration for the forum members. For example, we recently had an episode in which a member expressed some of his less than savory ideas about race. Maybe, if that member had been aware that discussing those ideas would get him into some trouble here, he may not have been so lose-jawed. Also, had he clearly violated said hypothetical rule, the mods would have had to spend no time in banning his ass out of here immediately.

Firstly, the rule was not hypothetical; you quoted the terms and conditions yourself. Secondly, while I am LOATHE to discuss members publicly (because I would rather treat them as adults, not naughty schoolchildren) the person in question was warned. The issue was that he disagreed with everyone else's opinion (moderator and member alike) that he WAS being offensive.

The main argument I have heard against a posted set of rules here is that mods shouldn't have to spell out what falls within " reasonable limits of expression," it should be 'common sense.' In day to day real life, I would agree with you, we all are aware of a general set of rules (and that's a stretch, really). However, people come HERE, a forum on the INTERNET for the express purpose of having an arena where the rules are lax and they can say the things, test the behavior that would otherwise have no outlet. Yes, there are plenty of places online where you can go and unload your verbal diarrhea, and if we want to have a higher standard of decorum then by all means, let's do that. However MAKE PEOPLE AWARE OF IT, let them know what they are getting into when they join. The rules are there to protect even those we may not agree with, so if you expect them to behave within your standards, a little heads up would probably go a long way.

That wasn't my argument at all, but spread as it was over many pages it is perhaps no surprise you didn't take it all in.

You seem to believe that the rules should be lax, and yet also believe that racism shouldn't be tolerated? Well, how lax is lax, and how intolerable is intolerable? Should there be a rule for that too? Should we really have a small novel filled with rules, definitions, sub paragraphs and references? Well, if we got started now we might be finished by 2020

Also, I do not think that a set of rules would in any way tie the hands of the moderators to have to unjustly punish harmless content as Steel suggests. OF COURSE rules are open for interpretation, any example of rules ever comes hand in hand with a body of people committed to making sure that those rules are applied logically in unique and individual circumstances. The moderators would still be empowered to use their judgment, and with a public set of rules to back them, they may even suffer less criticism from forum members who disagree. Also, not that I am in any way personally attacking the moderators or decisions they have made, but a public set of rules acts as a standard for all involved, including moderators. If maybe there was an overwhelming belief that a moderator was abusing their power, they too would have to answer to the rules instead forcing forum members to blindly believe that “all was handled fairly.”

Again, that wasn't the main gist of my argument. It was that MEMBERS would point (and I believe I used that word) to an infraction of the rules and demand action be taken when a discretionary measure would make far more sense. Is that what you want to see?

It seems that the mods all agree that the policy/method in place for handling the forum and chat are good and justified. My point is, how would anyone know? With no one aware of what is or isn't allowed, how are forum members supposed to discern if the rules are being applied fairly?

Ok, hang on a minute, are we discussing the forum or the chat here? They are two seperate areas. If you have a specific concern, by all means pm me with it.

 

[Just_Some_Dude]

i've been a moderator off and on at forums of my own and others for almost a decade.

lesson #1 - never, EVER, allow yourself to be pulled into a debate with the members.

the answer to all questions when pushed beyond is simply: because "that's the way it is". it just encourages open and extended debate into the way you run your forum. that's never good. that being said, you guys do a pretty **** good job here i think. even if my more risque posts disappear! LOL

to other members, arguing with moderators/administrators about how they run their site, is like being invited into somebody else's house and arguing with them about how they decorate. not cool. you don't have to like it. you don't have to stay. am i right steel?

my three cents

 

[nerdygirl]

I would love to have a "Let's the the Penises!" thread. Just saying.

Also, regarding Green Eggs and Ham. To some people, SAM = Smart Ass Masochist which makes it more amusing to read, "I am Sam. Sam I am."

 

[Just_Some_Dude]

I would love to have a "Let's the the Penises!" thread. Just saying.

we can start that, pm me

 

[EveWasFramed]

because "that's the way it is".

lmfao...my new mantra...

to other members, arguing with moderators/administrators about how they run their site, is like being invited into somebody else's house and arguing with them about how they decorate. not cool. you don't have to like it. you don't have to stay. am i right steel?

my three cents

Awesome analogy.

 

[evanescencefan91]

hmm how can i work this to my advantage... *ponders*

yes i think it only fair that evanescence fan receive a $20 in the mail every week for being so awesome


hmmm... what's that I'm evfan oh well then that works out for me doesn't it tehe




i think the golden rule works well treat others as you wish to be treated

*sings*
can I get a little respect

 

[Just_Some_Dude]

*sings*
can I get a little respect

HOLLA! WOOT! WOOT!

 

[Badjedidude]

I would love to have a "Let's the the Penises!" thread. Just saying.

Don't be a sexist, nerdy.

If there's a penis thread, there has to be a boobs or vagina thread also. And maybe an extra thread for "other."

----Steve

 

[Estreen]

The issue was that he disagreed with everyone else's opinion (moderator and member alike) that he WAS being offensive.

That statement, sir, is false. He may have lacked verbal grace and tact when discussing a highly controversial topic, to which a majority of people got highly offended at, but not all of us were offended.

Oh and the thing I learned today was that apparently you can not make a secondary account; period. What's funny about that, is that when Kevin was here, he had at least 3 (and they weren't banned til he finally was), Van had two accounts, and I know of others here who currently have 2 accounts, but to protect their privacy, I will not reveal their names. Personally, it's not a big deal; it wasn't a "serious" account anyway, but seeing as how others both past and present had/have them, and there were no explicit rules saying otherwise, so how was I supposed to know?

If it's not allowed here, then that is fine; but make sure everyone knows, and that it is a standard for all members, not just some. I was told it's a "common standard" among "most forums"; all the past forums I've been on, it was allowed as long as you didn't cause trouble or use it to attack/insult others.

Anyway, that's an example of one of the things that would be nice to know; I've been here for well over a year now, and never knew that until I made one.

I honestly do believe it would make things easier for everyone, but it's not up to me. *shrug*

Anyway, Steel (or anyone else for that matter), please do not get defensive, as I don't mean to attack you or what you're doing; I think you guys do a lot around here and I understand that a lot of crap goes on that you have to deal with and that you try to handle it the best way you can. I am only trying to offer some suggestions, not to attack you. I believe Sarah was trying to do the same but it looks like what she said didn't go over too well with you.

I apologize for anything said here that may come off as offensive and/or disrespectful; I never like hurting peoples' feelings or making people feel like anything but happy, but lately I just seem to be upsetting a lot of people around here with the things I say, which leaves me to wonder if I can even write properly anymore, haha.

Anyway, that's my piece.

 

[Just_Some_Dude]

And maybe an extra thread for "other."

lemme know when that one gets started, i'll take the day off

 

[VanillaCreme]

The words to it are indelibly etched into my brain.

Luke Luck likes lakes. Luke's duck likes lakes. Luke Luck licks lakes. Luck's duck licks lakes.

Why?

 

[Steel]

That statement, sir, is false. He may have lacked verbal grace and tact when discussing a highly controversial topic, to which a majority of people got highly offended at, but not all of us were offended.

This, madam, is a pedantic comment - change my quote to "almost everyone" and it becomes completely true.

Oh and the thing I learned today was that apparently you can not make a secondary account; period. What's funny about that, is that when Kevin was here, he had at least 3 (and they weren't banned til he finally was), Van had two accounts, and I know of others here who currently have 2 accounts, but to protect their privacy, I will not reveal their names. Personally, it's not a big deal; it wasn't a "serious" account anyway, but seeing as how others both past and present had/have them, and there were no explicit rules saying otherwise, so how was I supposed to know?

Kevin had his accounts removed as they were discovered. Van lied about his reason for a second account. I do not like discussing individual cases, as you should know, but I feel that you needed to be put straight.

I feel you are mistaking a "please don't do this" with "do this and you get banned". The two are NOT the same at all.

WHY do we enforce this one? We had a case of an internet stalker who was using multiple IDs to get close to his victim, by posing as different people. While I don't think for one moment that this was your intention, you must realise that we need to be able to make decisions based upon information you are not privy to.

Anyway, Steel (or anyone else for that matter), please do not get defensive, as I don't mean to attack you or what you're doing; I think you guys do a lot around here and I understand that a lot of crap goes on that you have to deal with and that you try to handle it the best way you can. I am only trying to offer some suggestions, not to attack you. I believe Sarah was trying to do the same but it looks like what she said didn't go over too well with you.

Many forums would close a thread like this immediately, but we have always refrained from doing so. Mostly because we have nothing to hide (perhaps the fact that I'm not known for shying away from a debate may explain my personal motivation as well.... but I digress).

Everyone here, in the signup agreement, has agreed to abide by certain conditions of behaviour. You will find that no moderator's actions have contradicted this agreement and that we tend to have a very laid back and common sense interpretation of said rules.

Educating someone is not defensiveness; it was clear to me that there were certain misnomers that needed to be corrected, and I hope my posts here have helped elucidate the matter. Of course, accusing people of defensiveness is often a crude method of trying to prevent criticism, although I am hoping you would not stoop to such a level.

Now, if there's nothing else, maybe I should eat my lunch. BLT. Yum.

 

[Just_Some_Dude]

That statement, sir, is false. He may have lacked verbal grace and tact when discussing a highly controversial topic, to which a majority of people got highly offended at, but not all of us were offended.

This, madam, is a pedantic comment - change my quote to "almost everyone" and it becomes completely true.

Oh and the thing I learned today was that apparently you can not make a secondary account; period. What's funny about that, is that when Kevin was here, he had at least 3 (and they weren't banned til he finally was), Van had two accounts, and I know of others here who currently have 2 accounts, but to protect their privacy, I will not reveal their names. Personally, it's not a big deal; it wasn't a "serious" account anyway, but seeing as how others both past and present had/have them, and there were no explicit rules saying otherwise, so how was I supposed to know?

Kevin had his accounts removed as they were discovered. Van lied about his reason for a second account. I do not like discussing individual cases, as you should know, but I feel that you needed to be put straight.

I feel you are mistaking a "please don't do this" with "do this and you get banned". The two are NOT the same at all.

WHY do we enforce this one? We had a case of an internet stalker who was using multiple IDs to get close to his victim, by posing as different people. While I don't think for one moment that this was your intention, you must realise that we need to be able to make decisions based upon information you are not privy to.

Anyway, Steel (or anyone else for that matter), please do not get defensive, as I don't mean to attack you or what you're doing; I think you guys do a lot around here and I understand that a lot of crap goes on that you have to deal with and that you try to handle it the best way you can. I am only trying to offer some suggestions, not to attack you. I believe Sarah was trying to do the same but it looks like what she said didn't go over too well with you.

Many forums would close a thread like this immediately, but we have always refrained from doing so. Mostly because we have nothing to hide (perhaps the fact that I'm not known for shying away from a debate may explain my personal motivation as well.... but I digress).

Everyone here, in the signup agreement, has agreed to abide by certain conditions of behaviour. You will find that no moderator's actions have contradicted this agreement and that we tend to have a very laid back and common sense interpretation of said rules.

Educating someone is not defensiveness; it was clear to me that there were certain misnomers that needed to be corrected, and I hope my posts here have helped elucidate the matter. Of course, accusing people of defensiveness is often a crude method of trying to prevent criticism, although I am hoping you would not stoop to such a level.

Now, if there's nothing else, maybe I should eat my lunch. BLT. Yum.

Post #49 man! Post #49! LOL (sorry, i'll butt out)