THE RULES discussion

[Brewha]

I think that there should just be one rule - "don't be a jerk".

Other rules may need to be implemented as the need arises, but I sure can't forsee any.

Don't be a jerk, sounds good to me.

[Rube E. Tewesday]

Personal insults are to be kept in the Pit, right?

[Ken S.]

Everybody put much got the "jerk" thing. I don't mind spelling out some limits on extreme things, though -- no physical threats, no hate speech, no posting of other people's personal info. Stuff like that.

I'm Diogenes on the Dope, by the way.

[CRSP]

Welcome, Diogenes.

OK, how about moderation? I think merging the poster and moderator at the SDMB, with "mod hats" and "poster hats" is a bad idea. What about separate Moderator accounts? Also, is everybody happy with the board structure? The Games Room is a subfolder of Cafe Society---is this good for people? At the moment, people can only create polls in IMHO. I think this is for the best, but willing to admit I'm wrong.

[Rube E. Tewesday]

I actually thought the "mod hat" system worked pretty well at the Dope for a long time, but recent events have shown how it can go wrong. I'd be OK with a two account system.

[featherlou]

I think the "mod hat" worked well for a long time, but recent idiocies have made it unworkable (take a look at the mod spouting off in my thread about how complaints go in ATMB without putting his Mod Hat on - he's half in poster mode and half in mod mode, yet acting like a mod - hell, I should Pit him for that, because he didn't use his official capacity, so it's fair game).

Uh, what was the question again? Oh yeah, rules - in my experiences with The Dope and other boards, "Don't be a jerk" covers a lot of transgressions.

After a run-in on a different board where someone was viciously and specifically wishing death on all Muslims, I'm partial to "No hate speech" too.

No personal attacks outside of the Pit works fine for me (and worked fine for The Dope for a long time).

I'm not too sure about threats of physical harm; it's a message board - we all understand that threats are just bluster. Death threats against other posters - a little more problematic, but again, just bluster, unless they actually post something like, "I'm going to track you down and kill you." rather than, "Why don't you fuck off and die?"

Strong language - I don't care in the slightest about this. I don't swear much, but I played mostly in The Pit and the language there didn't bother me.

Complaints about management - ah, there's a tough one (and the one that The Dope is getting particularly wrong). You have to be able to bitch about management, in plain language. Putting it in one place is a good idea. Making your management off-limits for criticism is not. That way lies madness.

[featherlou]

And may I say how refreshing it is to feel like I actually have a voice again? I've been on the Dope a long time; it wasn't until recently that I have felt like all management really wanted from me was to sit down and shut up.

[jali]

Thanks for this. I'm glad to have somewhere else to hang out!

"Don't be a jerk" pretty much covers it for me too.

[Giles]

And may I say how refreshing it is to feel like I actually have a voice again? I've been on the Dope a long time; it wasn't until recently that I have felt like all management really wanted from me was to sit down and shut up.

Yes, the SDMB has increasingly felt like an insignificant arm of some lurking commercial empire, rather than something that actually belongs to its members.

[CRSP]

Welcome, Giles!

[Mangetout]

The more clearly and explicitly you try to define the rules, the harder it will be to enforce them, and the easier it will be for people to violate them in spirit, but not in letter - and the more pointless and destructive will be the pedantic bickering over the fine details.

Keep it really simple, I'd say - let the mods exercise a bit of judgment, and let the members criticise the mods, if they see fit (this bit will police itself, IMO - as anyone inappropriately pitting a mod will be corrected by other members).

But don't respond to criticism of the rules or the mods by introducing more, or more detailed rules - that error is what's killing the SDMB, I think.

[Risha]

I think that we can crib the broad strokes from the SDMB and just dump the recent changes, and maybe anything else immensely unpopular (which I'm sure exist but I can't currently think of). They're 95% good rules with 5% crap and bad administration thown on top.

I liked the "Mod Hat" technique, personally. It works very well as long as it's consistantly held to by all moderators. Maybe we can codify it as an actual rule instead of a suggestion.

[Baldwin]

I don't think I've ever heard any good pro-jerk arguments, so "Don't be a jerk" sounds like a keeper. Also, no personal insults outside the Pit (ah, yes, the good ol' Pit).

What about trolling? Annoying, but do we need a rule against it?

ETA: I'm also Baldwin on SDMB.

[Ken S.]

I'm not too sure about threats of physical harm; it's a message board - we all understand that threats are just bluster. Death threats against other posters - a little more problematic, but again, just bluster, unless they actually post something like, "I'm going to track you down and kill you." rather than, "Why don't you fuck off and die?"

I was only talking about real, literal threats ("I'm going to come to your house and kill you"), not figurative stuff or smack talk.

[Guinastasia]

So basically, the same stuff as SDMB before Ed fucked it over?








(Oh, and might want to watch-the Snarkers are probably going to TRY to invade. Should be entertaining.)

[danceswithcats]

So basically, the same stuff as SDMB before Ed fucked it over?








(Oh, and might want to watch-the Snarkers are probably going to TRY to invade. Should be entertaining.)

Shit. I didn't think of that, but fear you're right.

[Guinastasia]

Oh-just because sometimes it slows computers down-can we have a rule for PDF links warnings? Just like a spoiler one. That's all. Or maybe not a RULE, per se, more like a courtesy.

[CRSP]

(Oh, and might want to watch-the Snarkers are probably going to TRY to invade. Should be entertaining.)

The board's already been linked over there. I disabled Guest posting, because of that.

[prr]

Thanks for the invite. And fuck you, while I'm at it. It feels good to know I can speak freely--also feels good to be able to abbreviate that long, long username for a change.

Why don't we just take a "wait and see" attitude with the rules? (I kid, I kid...)

[ShelliBean]

Oh-just because sometimes it slows computers down-can we have a rule for PDF links warnings? Just like a spoiler one. That's all. Or maybe not a RULE, per se, more like a courtesy.

I would stick to "courtesy" because when you start making rules, then someone that forgets has now broken a rule and it becomes a deal.

PS - hi everyone!

PPS - what the fuck is up with this "no more than 60000 characters"? I mean, what if I want to make my one post manifesto and storm off? Huh? Did you think of that? Noooooo, you didn't. Didja?

[Dinsdale]

"You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated ... material"

What the fuck's with this shit, you bunch of goat felching cunts? FOAD!

How ya doin!

[prr]

"sexually-orientated "

orientated? Is there something terribly wrong with "oriented"? Have we agreed to become numbskulls?

[Malacandra]

"sexually-orientated "

orientated? Is there something terribly wrong with "oriented"? Have we agreed to become numbskulls?

:?

Well, OK, you have my agreement. Sorry not to have given it sooner but I wasn't aware you were waiting for it.

[Cluricaun]

Holy smokes, look at the smileys. Howdy everyone. Just wanted to register and bookmark so I'm ready in case of apocolypse. :twisted:

[RedFury]

RedFury reporting in and ready for duty -- raising hell that is.

Thought about doing something like this myself, but I've already had the pleasure of running a BB (still up) and erm...decided against it. But if I can be of any help (doubtful) just let me know.

Well done guys/gals -- IMO this was/is the only worthy response. If I want to pay to be abused I'll hire a Dominatrix; Ed just doesn't do it for me.

Best of luck to us all.

~Red

[Giles]

If I want to pay to be abused I'll hire a Dominatrix; Ed just doesn't do it for me.

Yoiu know, I'm having doubts now about the theory that Cecil Adams = Ed Zotti. Cecil Adams is/was a cheerful old curmudgeon, who regularly insulted his correspondents with indiscriminate abandon. Ed Zotti is a curmudgeon, but that seems to be the only thing he has in common with Uncle Cec.

[Julie]

I would like there to be a rule that if anybody posts something like this and it isn't immediately followed by a "Just kidding!" that person should be shot: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/sho ... stcount=18

[alice_in_wonderland]

I think 'Don't be a Jerk' is pretty well key.

What about socks though - I don't think I've noticed anyone mention them. I appreciate why they're not allowed on SDMB but can also see why they could be good - if someone wanted to ask a personal question without being identified, for instance.

What say you?

[CRSP]

I have no problem with socks, unless they're causing chaos, and I could never understand the fuss made over them at the SDMB. I think this needs voting on, though.

[Rube E. Tewesday]

I always hated socks, because of their usenet connotation of someone that you invent merely to back you up in an argument you're losing. However, I've softened up since seeing the ridiculous amount of sock-hunting that was going on at the SDMB recently. I don't think I have a problem with them, unless they're being used to troll.

[Kalhoun]

I seem to have misplaced my original post. Anyway, I'll give it a try here. Thanks for the invite!

[Julie]

Socks seem so immaterial to me (hey, that's almost a pun!) I don't see the point in either specifically allowing or specifically disallowing them. Sockhunting is the stupidest thing in the world, though.

[Giles]

On another board, several years ago, I created about a dozen socks, but they were all pretty obvious jokes. A poster (let's call him X) got all these imaginary characters named after him, such as "Son_of_X", "Underpants_of_X", "House_of_X" -- you get the picture. I didn't start the process, though I may have created more socks than others, and I don't think anyone though it was anything other than harmless fun. But I can see how socks can be used for much more malicious purposes.

[prr]

In certain threads, deabates and such, socks wold be annoying. Why don't we try (provisionally) an idea bruited about the SD recently, that of allowing sock accounts, but IDing them as sock accounts (Sock1, Sock2, and so on) that people could use in addition to their regular accounts, where maybe they don't want to be IDed with their username (deeply personal stuff, stuff that could come back to haunt them IRL) but otherwise have a no-sock rule?

[featherlou]

I don't really see what positive addition socks make to a message board. If I have something to say, I say it under my username. And then I go to a brand new message board and say what I REALLY think.

I do like knowing who I'm dealing with, with all the history and all. I don't think I'd put a lot of time and effort into sock-hunting, though - I don't think most people can be bothered to create socks.

[Mangetout]

I can see how socks might be useful if you want to start a thread asking about treatment of your festering anal warts or some such, but people don't actually seem too shy of doing that under their main identity.

[SilverTygerGirl]

I can see how socks might be useful if you want to start a thread asking about treatment of your festering anal warts or some such, but people don't actually seem too shy of doing that under their main identity.

There's things I haven't asked or haven't said because I don't want people knowing certain things about me. Especially after the Dope was opened to search engines.

[Guinastasia]

IIRC, I think there was a specific incident which lead to the "no-socks" rule, wasn't there?

[CRSP]

Guys, how do the rules outlined in the OP look? Is everybody happy with them? Too many rules, too few?

[mozg]

Everybody put much got the "jerk" thing. I don't mind spelling out some limits on extreme things, though -- no physical threats, no hate speech, no posting of other people's personal info. Stuff like that.

I'm Diogenes on the Dope, by the way.

Hi Diogenes. I am catsix on the Dope.

I agree with these, as long as we can still say FOAD and the like.

[Cluricaun]

Guys, how do the rules outlined in the OP look? Is everybody happy with them? Too many rules, too few?

Democracy? Fuck me.

Your board your rules man, but those look fine to me.

[TheFlame]

Are we allowed to talk about recreational drugs and/or file-sharing?

[CRSP]

Talk about, yes. Linking to file hosting websites, torrents or places that sell crackpipes isn't good. That's what PM is for.

[WhyNot]

I really like them so far, although I understand if you have to tweak them. I especially like the Sock rules - seems to address the problems socks can cause - namely, trolling - without throwing out the useful purposes - namely, sheltering your identity for embarrassing questions.

I've never really had a problem with the "supportive stockings" issue, 'cause mostly I think if you can't support your argument with one username, you're not going to do any better with two. I've always ignored the "Yeah, me too!" or "Wow, you're so brilliant!" posts with nothing more to substantiate them, anyhow.

(Wait. Except if they have my name in them. "Wow, WhyNot, you're brilliant!" should be encouraged. Perhaps even mandatory on Thursdays. )

[TheFlame]

Talk about, yes. Linking to file hosting websites, torrents or places that sell crackpipes isn't good. That's what PM is for.

May I suggest that this be enshrined in the forum rules, because I reckon (and I think amnesia weekend provided evidence) that a lot of people will be interested in being able to discuss these sorts of things (plus others I might not have thought of) with other Dopers.

[TheFlame]

Oh, I've just noticed its included in the Pit Rules. Please ignore the above post.

[prr]

I remain intrigued by the idea of "community socks"--not because I think I'd use them very much, but because when it was proposed on the SD, I couldn't really see a downside, and I think it would be an interesting experiment to run on a new board.

Unless it has alrady been tried on some other board and there were problems that I'm not thinking of. Does anyone know if this is the case?

[TheFlame]

prr: Can you clarify, or link to a pertinent thread on the Dope? I'm not sure what a "community sock" is or does!

[Guinastasia]

Oh-just because sometimes it slows computers down-can we have a rule for PDF links warnings? Just like a spoiler one. That's all. Or maybe not a RULE, per se, more like a courtesy.

I would stick to "courtesy" because when you start making rules, then someone that forgets has now broken a rule and it becomes a deal.

Sounds good to me!

Didn't Lynn actually have a sock she used when banning people-until the "No-Socks" rule was started? What was the incident that lead to the rule? I know it happened right before I started posting.