Neualtenburg Forum Rules

Since some people don't know the purpose of the Neualtenburg forum, i'll post them. Also i've added my ideas for deleting/editng/locking threads and posts.

Purposes of the Neualtenburg Forums
- distribute the task of answering questions among many people.
- get to know each other in order to promote informed voting.
- discuss present and future city policies.
- answer questions and address concerns.

My Ideas:

Dealing with deleting or locking a post/thread.
- At least 5 people who have Neualtenburg citizenship must quote the post that they think should be deleted or edited. If five people quote the post the post will be deleted by a moderator.
- To lock a thread, five citizens must create a post in the thread stating "lock thread". If five citizens write "lock thread" the thread will be locked by the available moderator.

RELATED COMMENTS ARE WELCOME

Technically, only members of the SC can lock threads and delete posts as well as review those which have been locked or deleted, as policing and judging is their function within the city. The RA can pass laws codifying when a thread can and can't be locked by an SC member. Finally, citizens can draft bills and elect members of the RA.

So citizens do have an influence over moderation in that they elected the RA who writes laws that the SC enforces.

At our currently level of development, I think drafting laws to guide moderation for citizens and noncitizens would be appropriate.

~Ulrika~

I know Flyingroc posted his proposal. While flawed, the basic idea of codifying the moderation in law isn't bad at all. I talked with him a little about it later on, and urged him to try again after consideration and thought.

Hi, I've been thinking a lot about this lately, I think my original idea about forum regulation (aside from the constitutional problems ulrika pointed out) has the deficiency of slowing down the modertors too much.

I havent had the time to write it all up, here's the main gist of my new idea:

Forum moderators will need to be able to act quickly with trolls and griefers, but the free speech rights of citizens should be given the widest latitude. Therefore, I suggest 2 sets of rules, one for non-citizens and another for citizens.

For non-citizens, moderators will have no limitations, they can delete and lock threads ands posts at will. With the understanding, of course, that a grave abuse of these powers may provoke the other branches to impeach the moderator.

For citizens, posts should never be deleted. If the moderator thinks that what was posted was inappropriate, the thread may be locked, and charges should be filed against that citizen. If the citizen is found innocent, the thread may be unlocked. If the citizen is found guilty of violating forum rules, then sanctions will be applied to that citizen.

What exactly the rules are will have to be threshed out, but I suppose offenses should include:
* calls to sabotage sim/s under nburg jurisdiction (yeah, yeah...)
* personal attacks
* disorderly conduct

Penalties could range from censure to fines to expulsion.

I'm also wondering if there should not be some emergency clause where the moderator can delete a citizen's post. For example, a citizen might reveal personal information about another avatar. I think that calls for immediate action.

What do you think?

I propose the following:

THE STAND (aka the Rules)


PART I. OUR RESPONSIBILITIES TO YOU

1. We support and promote free speech, equality, and lively discussion; therefore we provide a forum that is open to all; there are no membership requirements or qualifications. We do not discriminate on the basis of philosophical, political, or religious affiliation or opinion.

2. We respect your privacy. We will never divulge your personal information to anyone or any organization for any reason. If another member discloses your personal information, please notify us immediately; their posting privileges will be revoked.

3. We will never censor, alter, or remove your posts as long as you adhere to the five simple rules in Parts II and III below.

PART II. YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES TO US

1. Spamming/flooding the forum will result in the immediate revocation of membership privileges*.

2. Posts containing extremely profane language will be deleted and the member will receive a warning. A second violation will result in the immediate revocation of membership privileges*. If you can‘t say it in a PG Sim, don’t write it here.

PART III. YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES TO EACH OTHER

1. Physical threats against and/or private message (PM) harassment of another member will result in the immediate revocation of membership privileges*.

2. Personal attacks and insults directed at another member will result in the immediate revocation of membership privileges*. Attack the opinion, not the individual.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic/intolerant posts will be deleted and will result in the immediate revocation of membership privileges.

Under these rules none of the threads I started should have been locked, right?

wrong.

Please tell me which rule I broke, post the example, so I don't do it again. Please.

III.2, by that set, I reckon.

You're going easier on him, Ali. I'd also hit'em with II.1 for spamming by opening those new inflamatory posts...

Edit > I'm sorry Aliasi but I can no longer speak to you, on the grounds that your last post was the P0ST OF TEH B43ST!!!! ;P

III,2 and II,1 --and III,3 if I push it.

Please show me the posts, so I know exactly what I said that was breaking III,2 and III,3. I watch you in the forums to see what is acceptable, if I was not in accordance with your regular decorum, I need to adjust my actions. If you show me the offending posts I promise to adjust my actions.

request denied. If you can't figure it out for yourself, I'm certainly not going to waste my time by re-posting offensive material.

In other words --You know what you did, Kevn. Before you post --ask yourself:

WWJP. What would Jesus post.

I think this makes perfect sense!! Very nice Kendra!

I'm perfectly happy allowing our SC to take the role of moderators (as always). If they so wish to take these thoughts into consideration, I'd fully support them still.

I've used these rules very effectively on a political forum I've moderated for the last four years. They're clear,concise --and though I'm not in general a prude about language the profane language rule does seem to curtail temper tantrums.

Yes, I actually agree. I know it would help me. I tend to become a Sailor Mouth when I get on the defensive angry.

I'm very bad at curtailing my own salty tongue. In any event it's the SC's call --but I do strongly recommend "The Stand" or something similar to be posted as a sticky.

My question is, when you say someone broke a rule, does "The Stand" allow for a defense? If so, does the person who is accused get to know what the exact offence was?

If I broke these two rules..:

2. Personal attacks and insults directed at another member will result in the immediate revocation of membership privileges*. Attack the opinion, not the individual.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic/intolerant posts will be deleted and will result in the immediate revocation of membership privileges.

Shouldn't you show me an example of me insulting another member or attacking someone personally?

Also, I have not made any intolerant statements concerning race, gender, sexual orientation etc.

I'm not aware of any statements that break either of these rules.

But if you show me, I promise to stop.

Speaking only for m'self, I'd love to see such as these as part of a proposal - but in the meantime, they're certainly worthwhile rules of thumb.

'course I don't actually have forum moderator status.

Ok,I'm just reveiwing your posts to see what is acceptable behavior. So I have a meter to gauge my behavior.

First this, posted to me...

/103/bf/70394/1.html#post730638

Kendra: How noble of you to fight the good fight. Unfortunatly your actions are far more akin to a chimpanzee flinging poopy than they are to Nathan Hale.

Here's another

/112/92/70077/2.html#post727059

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevn Klein
Learning others religion helps us understand them better. Why ignore a huge part of what make people think and do as they do?



Kendra: Because religious people are bat-squeeze insane? Just sayin'


Are these examples of acceptable speech here, making fun of people's faith in God? Or comparing my arguments to a "chimpanzee flinging poopy".

That isn't acceptable in my book, and I wouldn't do it to you or your beliefs. The fact I disagree with you doesn't give me the right to make fun of you.

I just deleted three of Kevn's most recent posts. In the last, he went back through previous posts made by Kendra pointing out where we he thinks she has violated her own rules. This is sadly reminiscent of standard unproductive flame wars that go on in Off Topic and is starkly in contrast to the standard productive work that gets done in the forum.

Because this is a continuation of a flame war that began with three locked threads today, that Kevn is not a citizen, and that Kevn is just about impossible to reason with, I am banning him from the forum for two weeks to end this nonsense. Any further posts he makes will be deleted until then.

I appreciate your continued patience with my handling of our on going invasion.

~Ulrika~

Ulrika, I certainly am all in favour of your continued efforts. Some Neualtenburgers are already fearing we may just be attracting too much attention lately and thus the envy that drives a few people to exercise their trolling/griefing skills in our forums.

This is actually nothing new for us N'burg old-timers It was like that at the beginning of N'burg; it's the same when people saw, after more than a year, that the Projekt still goes on despite everything, and now we are even showing that we can be both a community and a profit-generating enterprise

Kendra, I'd seriously like to consider "The Stand" at a forthcoming RA meeting for a "vote of confidence". Since forum moderation is a SC duty, the SC could simply "approve" it and that's all (I'm all for it, BTW). Having the RA's "endorsement" (ie. "We, the RA, would really love that the SC accepted 'The Stand' as the forum moderation guidelines" would just be a nicety that would help Neualtenburgers understand that we're all in favour of it.

Just my L$0.02 — and I'm back to hibernation mode