Changes to the Rules

[Captain Luke]

Dear Valued Member,

There have been several instances recently where the general feeling is that in order to carry out our rules fairly and without bias we have had to make uncomfortable decisions which, whilst being equitable within the framework that we have set out are ultimately silly and unfair.

After much discussion the Admins and Moderators have decided to implement a change in the way we police our Rules.  Our deliberations have focussed on trying to maintain the balance that we believe we have found on our forum that allows us to create a (generally) pleasant atmosphere that encourages debate from a wide range of different viewpoints. The Moderators have no wish to be policemen (and women) and would rather that the forum ?self-moderates?. However, we recognise that in order for rules and guidelines to be effective, there needs to be some form of sanction.

We have been attempting to create a mutually acceptable amendment to our rules, but are finding it hard-going, and it may be a while before we can agree on a final result. While we are doing this it seems foolish to continue to impose punishments that might be overturned within a few months.
With this is mind we are making an immediate change to the handling of our rules, and effective immediately we are removing the penalty for ALL rules, except for rules 7,8,9 & 16. Rules

The interpretations of our rules will remain the same but for the most part without the penalty.  Using a relatively famous rule breach: ?You are a sinner?, as an example. The post would be reported, the Mods would vote on whether it was a rule breach using our index of precedent, and were it to be found ?guilty? then the Valued Member would be asked if they would edit the post with no penalty. Should the Member refuse then a Mod would edit the post and log a Rule#9 breach, which would be handled in the same way as our current Penalty system.

This should (hopefully) drastically reduce the amount of ?Corner time? that we impose, and return the Corner more to its original purpose: An alternative to banning, and a place for ban-ees to argue their case.

Your comments would be welcomed in this thread.

Kind regards,
Staff

Please feel free to comment below.

[edit Mod10] Sorry, thread unlocked now... [/edit]

[sky]

So is rule #6 on or off?

[JustMyron]

On in that you have to modify your posts if they're found to be breaking rule 6. But off, in that if you modify your posts when asked, you'll never get cornered.

Basically we want people to follow the rules, but we are not fans of putting people in the corner. So if we say "look, that post broke a rule, fix it!" and you do, that's OK. Except for a few things like threatening people or posting private information, which are a bit more serious than calling someone an unpleasant name.

This is an experiment, with the hope that we can make this a more pleasant place by cornering people less. Fingers crossed... 

[sky]

 ^ Very good, sounds do-able.

[Sweetling]

The next Mods conversation might explore allowing members to vote on allowing consistently obnoxious, toxic members to stay, even if they do not technically violate Rule 6 on a frequent basis. The "Ignore" option isn't enough.

[sky]

Yeah! we need a good purge...Shall I send you my list?

[leese]

Good decision. Staff.

[SkunkButt]

I think adminstration and mods are trying too hard to find an answer to all problems that will please all members at all times. People are too complicated to be consistent even within their day to day moods. And with concepts that people hold passionately there are going to be words exchanged as a result of those passions and moods.

In a way I sort of agree with sweetling and leese that the consistently one note posters add very little beyone their one note somba. I have never used the ignore feature so I don't know how effective that is. At least the ingnore would provide relief to the ignorer until they are ready to remove poster from ignore or not.

I agree that the penalties have been sort of harsh

[Waldo]

Regardless of any decisions that may be made here, I find this place more tolerant than most, especially those that call themselves Christian sites.  Which is why I'm here to stay, most likely.

[Captain Luke]

I think adminstration and mods are trying too hard to find an answer to all problems that will please all members at all times.

I don't think that you can try too hard to find an answer, Skunky. We are probably doomed to failure, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try!

[rickymooston]

Its an interesting change. 

Would it have kept Vynn around? Probably not?

[Daveed]

Regardless of any decisions that may be made here, I find this place more tolerant than most, especially those that call themselves Christian sites.  Which is why I'm here to stay, most likely.

I personally would disagree (but then again I am a believer... that could be why I haven't gotten in trouble.). I personally think that Keylife.org's rules are lenient enough for those who are reasonable. They have a profanity filter. Yet the individual can turn it off. Funny though. Usually when people resort to profanity there is the attempt underlying it to intimidate the other into withdrawing from the conversation. But then again one can use many forms of communication to intimidate.

As far as profanity is concerned a reasonable filter would do. But I don't espouse the Politically correct position that one should remove profanity from the media. I don't believe in using it... but there is a difference in saying "you have free speach" and "you have free speach BUT,...."

when I talk to an agnostic or an atheist in person one on one... no audience ...there is no filter nor are there rules to protect me. I know there are differences here. But profanity is subjective. One could say s-h-i-t and to someone out there I'm sure that's profanity. Yet to others they have heard FAR worse. So that word is NOTHING to them.

[nateswift]

That the forum is better than most is due in large part to the efforts of the staff, and I for one appreciate that, whether I agree with all the decisions or not.
Personal opinion: the "temporary" solution might be a good permanent one.
No penalties but refusal to comply with requests to modify offending posts.  I think it is less the insults themselves that are the problem than the attitude that keeps making them, and a refusal to acknowledge that fault is what needs to be modified as needed.

[rickymooston]

I don't know if this forum is better.

I think it has growth potential and it has some great posts/posters.

The underlying idea of an open "neutral" environment is cool.

Of course I'm biased. On the list of religions Taoism and s**toism don't rate.

[Captain Luke]

Of course I'm biased. On the list of religions Taoism and s**toism don't rate.

I love your spello's Ricky. I'm going to start a break-off sect of "don't-give-a-s**toism". 

[rickymooston]

Of course I'm biased. On the list of religions Taoism and s**toism don't rate.

I love your spello's Ricky. I'm going to start a break-off sect of "don't-give-a-s**toism". 

haha.

Moose killed in japan

[sky]

What about plagiarism? I want to scan some information and post it, do I have to include the author?
Also do I have to keep siting my sources in my posts?

[Servant of God]

Me personally, I think the Admins and Mods are doing a great job, No One can please Everyone All the time so GOOD JOB everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

[JustMyron]

What about plagiarism? I want to scan some information and post it, do I have to include the author?
Also do I have to keep siting my sources in my posts?

Yes, and yes.

But, if you omit a source and someone reports it, you will be asked to edit your post to include this information, and if you do, then no penalty.

These are the rules which will get you an immediate penalty, where the moderators will take immediate action to fix things:

7.  No Threats.  Threats are posted content that implies some direct form of harm to another member.

8.  No Sock Puppets.  Regular members are only allowed one account each.  Any extra accounts will be banned.

16.  Member Privacy.  Do not post any personal information about another member unless either the information has already been published by that member on this Forum, or you have obtained the member's permission.  Personal information includes (but is not limited to) the contents of Member Group threads and posts, emails, PMs, letters etc., real names, real addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, medical information, employment information, banking or financial details, family history and photographs. 

All other rules will be enforced by a moderator PMing you and asking you to make appropriate changes to your posts. If you don't do so within 24 hours of being asked, that's a rule 9 break.

[sky]

Thanks Myron, I think I'm getting it...Can you tell I'm a rather free spirit? Have you ever met a Christian who hates rules as much as I do?

[Happy Evolute]

What about plagiarism? I want to scan some information and post it, do I have to include the author?
Also do I have to keep siting my sources in my posts?

Yes, and yes.

That is incorrect.

You are not required to cite a source, the Rules only stipulate that you acknowledge the work as not your own. You can cite and/or link, or not, as you see fit so long as you make it clear that your quote is someone else's work.

[JustMyron]

What about plagiarism? I want to scan some information and post it, do I have to include the author?
Also do I have to keep siting my sources in my posts?

Yes, and yes.

That is incorrect.

You are not required to cite a source, the Rules only stipulate that you acknowledge the work as not your own. You can cite and/or link, or not, as you see fit so long as you make it clear that your quote is someone else's work.

Oooops... yes. What HE said.

[rickymooston]

I want to propose a change.

If the user hasn't logged into their account in order to realize that the modification needs to be made, you shouldn't ding them for it.

[sky]

Then they could insult and then not log in on purpose.

[jetson]

I have a feeling that if I were put in the corner, I would just leave the site altogether - assuming I disagreed with the decision.  Even if I agreed, I might just take a longer break than the actual sentence!

[rickymooston]

I have a feeling that if I were put in the corner, I would just leave the site altogether - assuming I disagreed with the decision.

This is my concern. People get dinged, which is actually not that bad btw, for trivial offenses and then they get pissed off and leave.

  Even if I agreed, I might just take a longer break than the actual sentence!

That's definitely what othes do too.

[Sita]

This is my concern. People get dinged, which is actually not that bad btw, for trivial offenses and then they get pissed off and leave.

That's my concern too and this is one of the reasons why we have been trying to come up with a solution that will be fair to all, but unfortunately it?s much easier said than done.

[jetson]

This is my concern. People get dinged, which is actually not that bad btw, for trivial offenses and then they get pissed off and leave.

That's my concern too and this is one of the reasons why we have been trying to come up with a solution that will be fair to all, but unfortunately it?s much easier said than done.

How about just easing up a little, and stop worrying so much about peoples feelings?  Maybe the whole idea that WWGHA was too harsh an environment is ridiculous?  This topic is not one that lends itself to constant politeness. People do that naturally.  Those that don't can be ostracized by the rest of the forum.  I know that I simply stop replying or acknowledging the most disrespectful posters.

I know that this is a hot topic, and I won't pretend that I have any answers.  But maybe, just maybe, this whole thing is making too much of something that is largely handled naturally?  And there are definitely some great rules around trolling, preaching, etc., that I fully support.  And I cannot imagine the drudgery of being a mod and having to voluntarily deal with some of this!

[sky]

When you're in the corner you have no way to modify a rule break. Would one be able to okay the modification through an admin.

[Sweetling]

I have a feeling that if I were put in the corner, I would just leave the site altogether - assuming I disagreed with the decision.  Even if I agreed, I might just take a longer break than the actual sentence!

That's exactly how I felt. I spoke absolute truth with no gratuitous insult, and was asked to change my post. Absurd. That's why I take breaks... not that anyone but David seems to miss me... <sniff>

[JustMyron]

When you're in the corner you have no way to modify a rule break. Would one be able to okay the modification through an admin.

I am working on this issue at the moment. Thing is, I'm not terribly experienced at editing board permissions, so I have to make sure that I don't mess things up.

[sky]

Friggin awesome, someone get a snapshot of Myron in the corner, I don't know how to do it...

[Sita]

I have to admit Myron in The Corner is a pretty bizarre sight and one I never thought I would see.   

[sky]

I have to admit Myron in The Corner is a pretty bizarre sight and one I never thought I would see.   

The sight of that doesn't fit in my brain, but it sure is fun to look at. Myron get out of there, or will you have to create a sock puppet in order to post?

[JustMyron]

Are you two enjoying yourselves? 

[Sita]

It was fun while it lasted.  Thanks for the laugh, Myron, carry on. 

[sky]

Yes I enjoyed myself imagining Myron messing with the forum functions and creating a black hole for himself in which he could never get his IP number out of the corner therefore having to create a sock puppet in order to post and ask to be let out...begging for someone to hear him while all the rest of the admins and mods just couldn't bring themselves to let you out because it was too entertaining no matter how much you pleaded...

[JustMyron]

This is my concern. People get dinged, which is actually not that bad btw, for trivial offenses and then they get pissed off and leave.

That's my concern too and this is one of the reasons why we have been trying to come up with a solution that will be fair to all, but unfortunately it?s much easier said than done.

How about just easing up a little, and stop worrying so much about peoples feelings?  Maybe the whole idea that WWGHA was too harsh an environment is ridiculous?  This topic is not one that lends itself to constant politeness. People do that naturally.  Those that don't can be ostracized by the rest of the forum.  I know that I simply stop replying or acknowledging the most disrespectful posters.

Hey Jetson.

This is a recurring theme on this site - striking the balance between an environment people actually want to speak in, and one where they can say what they want.

It's really hard for the moderators to ease up "a little". How much is a little, exactly? Right now, if you use a derogatory term to describe a member, that's a rule break. Clear, simple, easy for both the members and the moderators to understand. Sure, maybe some derogatory terms might make you go "Really? That's pretty tame..." but if we start down the road of trying to determine when something is "a little" insult, and thus OK, vs. "a lot" insulting and so not ok... well, that just opens the door to a world of problems.

Personally, unless an insult is big, nasty, and blatant, I don't report it. I'm not looking to make work for anyone. But I will often PM people suggesting that something is likely to be reported, and sometimes this itself is enough to get people to change it.

I think most of the moderators are like me - they don't go around looking for work, and they certainly don't want to put people in the corner. Many of the posts that the moderators deal with are reported by members. In that situation, the moderators are in a bind, that "ease up a little" won't get them out of - if they decide to take no action, the member who reported it will be dissatisfied. If they decide to take action, the member who was reported will probably be dissatisfied. I mean, yeah, you're right, sometimes maybe people could let things slide, and not report it. But from a moderator's perspective, once something is reported, moderators need clear guidelines, so that they can say to whoever is going to end up disappointed (because guaranteed, it will be someone, moderating is a 0 sum game) "look, it's not personal, we're just doing a job here, these are the rules". How do you think it would go over with a member who reported an insult, if the moderators were to acknowledge it was an insult, but deem it not insulting enough to bother with? How would the moderators be able to logically defend that decision if when someone disagreed?

I absolutely recognize that some people feel stifled by the moderation here. I don't like that fact, but I'm not sure there's a better alternative. I promise, I'm trying to think of solutions that will work, so that people will not feel like they're walking on eggshells, and other people won't feel verbally assaulted, and the moderators will have a clear way of doing their jobs. But I don't think letting through things that are only a little insulting is the way to go.

As for the idea of just ostracizing people you don't like, that works fine if you're a certain sort of person. But not everyone wants to have to deal with people being nasty to them day in and day out. And those people, to be frank with you, are people I'd rather keep around, and see the people that have to be ostracized leave. If the moderators can take some of the burden of giving a**holes a cold shoulder off of our membership, I think that's a good thing.

I'm open to ideas, and I'm not trying to defend the status quo just because it's how things are currently done. But where there are good reasons for doing things in certain ways, I actually will support how we're doing things here. And I think having a clear line that says "Do not use a derogatory term (even a little one) to describe another member" is a good thing. It's not so much about people's feelings as it is about balancing several inherently conflicting requirements (for free speech, a pleasant environment, a rule system that is simple enough to be clear to everyone, and a rule system that is nuanced enough to not give stupid results).

[JustMyron]

PS: To those exasperated with the moderation, don't leave just yet. We do recognize y'all want your free speech, and we're throwing a few ideas around behind the scenes. They might pan out, or might not, so I can't guarantee what results you'll see (and by the way, this ^ rule change took over a month to reach consensus on, so any other modifications to the forum won't be next week) but... we're not ignoring you 

[sky]

Myron, you guys do a fine job. I appreciate that this place in NOTHING like WWGHA that place is a cesspool.

[jetson]

Myron, you guys do a fine job. I appreciate that this place in NOTHING like WWGHA that place is a cesspool.

It can be a breath of fresh air if you don't want to spend time censoring your replies to avoid breaking the insult rule.  I don't spend much time insulting people for the sake of it, but religion is a topic that heats up emotions.

I really enjoy WWGHA.

[sky]

Jetson, if you want to discuss something come here if you want to vent your hostilities go to WWGHA. You can still vent here but it will be handled in a civil fashion.

[jetson]

Jetson, if you want to discuss something come here if you want to vent your hostilities go to WWGHA. You can still vent here but it will be handled in a civil fashion.

I discuss over there, and occasionally, I use the rule system over there to make points back at the vitriol spewed by Christians and Muslims.  I don't use it as a venting forum, but it does allow me to call a spade a spade.  If I want to do that here, I have to be a bit more polite!

To be honest, the first time I entered WWGHA, I was concerned with some of what I read.  I was nervous about posting there, and I did think it got a little nasty.  I was a newbie.  But I was also a brand new atheist, and I had a lot to learn about what it is like being a part of such a hated group of people (atheists.)  Now I embrace the term because it gives me more power than I ever imagined against what is supposed to be religions of love and peace.

I do understand why you would not want to post there.

[JustMyron]

I do understand why you would not want to post there.

And that's exactly it.

WWGHA is an atheist site. IGI is not. It may seem like it's very atheist-leaning on some days, but it's not an atheist site. We actually want religious people around for more than convincing them to be atheists.

[jetson]

I do understand why you would not want to post there.

And that's exactly it.

WWGHA is an atheist site. IGI is not. It may seem like it's very atheist-leaning on some days, but it's not an atheist site. We actually want religious people around for more than convincing them to be atheists.

Yes, I remember when this site came online.  I remember not being that interested, but I was drawn in.  Then I ran smack into the dishonesty of certain religious posters and realized it was not worth it, so I left.  It was refreshing to come back, but I'm not sure if it's gotten any better. 

I'm learning new things though, so it's all good.

[JustMyron]

It was refreshing to come back,

What made it refreshing to come back?

[jetson]

It was refreshing to come back,

What made it refreshing to come back?

You're going to make me say it, aren't you ?   

[JustMyron]

You're going to make me say it, aren't you ?   

Well, if it's something the site would already consider one of its selling points, and something praised by others already, then no, I won't make you say it. But if it's something I might not have thought of that might be useful as a selling point to bring new people here or keep them here, then I want to know. I asked because I didn't know what you would answer, and I was curious.

[jetson]

It was refreshing to come to a kinder, gentler forum.  Honestly.

[catwixen]

No matter how much people b***h about the rules in this place, it does have a great effect that cannot be seen over at WWGHA. Some Theists stick around here and post with enough honesty that one can get to know them a bit. Get to know their thinking processes. I see at WWGHA that the environment is much less likely to produce open discussion on the part of believers. Once attacked, they go into defensive mode and that is the end of learning anything about them IMO.
I must say they are usually attacked because their debate style or discussion skills are not up to that of a learned non believer? (hope I expressed that ok) They might say something over there that is ridiculed heavily pretty early, whereas I think in IGI the pace is kinder...which gives time for the believer to settle in and open up a bit. Then can come actual cyber friendships between some atheists and theists!!!! Wow! 
I say phooey to the complainers about the rules. Not all rules, not all authority is bad...especially if it encourages an atmosphere of respect. And all though people do blow up here occassionally..the overall "feel"of this forum is respectful and one of learning how we all think.
Wow even the so called "Authority" here is constantly conversing with members to make the place more workable.

Good Frickin work IGI!
And double phooey to you whingers!!!!!

[Assyriankey]

Re the rule change, why not leave it to the moderators' (collective) discretion whether to charge a member with an etiquette violation or with a rule violation?  The mods already vote on the outcome of most rulings so it should be straightforward for them to, as part of that voting process, also decide on the severity of the transgression;  Mild = Etiquette, Severe = Rule.

[Captain Luke]

Mild and severe are very subjective, though, and I'm not sure that I'm comfortable making that distinction.

[Happy Evolute]

... it should be straightforward for them to, as part of that voting process, also decide on the severity of the transgression;  Mild = Etiquette, Severe = Rule.

I did suggest a points system for the severity of transgressions, but the concensus if that that would add an extra layer of complexity, so we did not go for that.

Whatever we do stands as a precedent for future decisions, so it is better to keep things simple.

[sky]

How about this? you take all of the members alphabetically and split them up between the mods, each mod has responsibility of the members that belong to a section of the alphabet, if anyone in their section gets reported that mod determines on their own if its a rule break. The mods switch the section of members on a rotating basis of which we are not privy to. That way each moderator can make decisions on their own and free up all the time that it takes in deliberations.

[rickymooston]

It can be a breath of fresh air if you don't want to spend time censoring your replies to avoid breaking the insult rule.  I don't spend much time insulting people for the sake of it, but religion is a topic that heats up emotions.

I really enjoy WWGHA.

Actually dead easy not to break rule 6.

Here is my algorithm. Don't label anybody. If you think somebody's post is idiotic, you don't have to call him an idiot.


In addition, under the old rules, you have one insult for month and you can pack as many imsults as you want in one post. So when the real flair up happens, you can use the rules to your advantage. Then ... simply edit your reply to avoid rule 9.

Alternatively, imply the insult. That's insanely easy to do.

[sky]

Come on you guys, don't you want your own kingdom?

[JustMyron]

Well yes, but we want people to worship us of their own free will. God understands this.

 

[sky]

Aha! you do get it...

[Assyriankey]

Mild and severe are very subjective, though, and I'm not sure that I'm comfortable making that distinction.

Set various precedents and stick to them, in conjunction with listening to the membership (<- already happening).

[Shawna]

I think that the idea of changing most rule breaks into etiquette breaches is a stroke of genius.  It's simple.  It's straightforward.  I think that it will work as well as Cornering.

Ricky is right, that it is unfortunate that a person could get a rule #9 because they hadn't logged in for a few days.  There is no way around that.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Ricky is right, that it is unfortunate that a person could get a rule #9 because they hadn't logged in for a few days.  There is no way around that.

Unfortunate, yes, but if a person breaks enough rules in a day to get a Corner sentence and then fails to log in, that's the risk they run.  Granted, things come up, but if one generally follows the rules in the first place and self-polices one's mistakes, that risk should be kept relatively low.

I think the biggest improvement will be in the occasional cases where members have a bad night and make a bunch of posts they don't really mean.  In the past, members who had emotional nights or posted under the influence have logged on to large corner sentences the next day.  Hopefully, 24 hours is enough time to calm down or sober up, and a member can go back and review their posts before the punishments start rolling in.  I'd personally advise editing anything questionable, in case some reports are still backlogged and get processed while you're offline.

Yes, we'll still have a few undeserved Rule #9s, but there should be a definite improvement.

[Waldo]

Couldn't the mods just go to the offenders profile and check when he last logged in?

[JustMyron]

Couldn't the mods just go to the offenders profile and check when he last logged in?

What would we do when someone says something really nasty and then doesn't log on for a week (or leaves the forum entirely)? We have to have a cut-off point at which the moderators edit things, and it wouldn't be particularly fair if you'd logged on briefly but not checked your messages, and so you got penalized, whereas someone who had their messages come to them in their e-mail and decided not to log on so as to avoid a penalty while still being able to leave their posts unedited would be able to get away with it.

[Sita]

Couldn't the mods just go to the offenders profile and check when he last logged in?

I do this.  The last 2 cornerings, both offenders were logged in during the 24 hour period.  There is no way to tell if they read their PMs, at least not that I know of, and if they read the PM, I certainly can?t force them to change their post if they don?t want to.

[Waldo]

I get a pop up every time I get a pm.  I believe that to be optional, however.  If a post is extremely offensive, is it not ethical for the mod to edit the offending words if no response is received?  Cornering would still apply, of course.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

I get a pop up every time I get a pm.  I believe that to be optional, however.  If a post is extremely offensive, is it not ethical for the mod to edit the offending words if no response is received?  Cornering would still apply, of course.

We edit posts when we apply the Rule #9 penalty.  We may also edit NSFW images that aren't suitable to be left around for 24 hours.

Things that we enforce with penalties, particularly Rules #7 & #16, are edited right away.


If you have an issue with getting your edits in on time, might I suggest you not break the rules when you know you're not going to be online?  Or better yet, don't break them at all?  Practically speaking, you get two chances to "forget" to edit over 60 days before you get Corner time.  Which means that you can break 2 rules a month and then not log on, and still avoid the Corner.

And if you're getting 3+ posts in a single night, and then log off for a week without checking your PMs, should you really be extended sympathy?

[Sita]

Yes, pop ups are optional.  If no response is received or the post has not been edited within 24 hours then a Rule #9 violation will be logged and the post will be edited by a mod.  Members are not restricted to the corner until 3 or more violations are logged.

[Rox]

Re the rule change, why not leave it to the moderators' (collective) discretion whether to charge a member with an etiquette violation or with a rule violation?  The mods already vote on the outcome of most rulings so it should be straightforward for them to, as part of that voting process, also decide on the severity of the transgression;  Mild = Etiquette, Severe = Rule.

I support a suggestion like this.  I'd much prefer a system where the mods make the judgement calls according to their experience as moderators.

No matter what they do they'll always be on the wrong side of someone and the right side of someone else.

Mods aren't always going to be liked but in my opinion their decisions should be respected.  It's never that black and white to moderate a discussion forum.  Isn't that why there's such a trouble with balancing the rules?
I think the members could do more to help respect the difficult job they do and allow for a more flexible system within the grey areas.

Mods work for the benefit of the forum as a whole and I'm all for supporting them doing their job using as much of their discretion as they see fit.

I've been moderated on other fora and I didn't always like the decision but I respected the instructions and followed them.

Nazi-mods always stand out and never last long in their roles.  My experiences here, so far, are that the mods are fair, but slaves to the rule system themselves.

I?d much rather see the mods making the calls and the members respecting the decisions like grown adults.

[wabbit111]

Can I ask for some clarification on a couple of points.

Take the word "b***h"

As I understand it if hypothetically I called someone who say, made an opinionated post I thought was unnecessary, a b***h, and they reported the post, I would accept I was in the wrong, and rightly so. However if I called my old mate Judo a b***h, as I often do. And added a smiley, would this be acceptable in the spirit of which it was done. i.e. jest.

Also if someone who bore a grudge, say someone with strong opinions about this sort of thing, saw me calling Judo a b***h in jest and reported it, would I be in trouble, even though the recipient of the post was quite happy with it?

[Happy Evolute]

If the insult was clearly humorous then it would not be considered a Rule #6 breach.

[wabbit111]

If the insult was clearly humorous then it would not be considered a Rule #6 breach.

Thank you for that H E, but what constitutes clearly.

Would a laughing smiley at the end suffice to indicate it was meant in jest?

[Happy Evolute]

If the insult was clearly humorous then it would not be considered a Rule #6 breach.

Thank you for that H E, but what constitutes clearly.

Would a laughing smiley at the end suffice to indicate it was meant in jest?

It's not always necessary to put a smiley, usually context is sufficient.

[wabbit111]

If the insult was clearly humorous then it would not be considered a Rule #6 breach.

Thank you for that H E, but what constitutes clearly.

Would a laughing smiley at the end suffice to indicate it was meant in jest?

It's not always necessary to put a smiley, usually context is sufficient.

so I wouldn't get away with calling someone a b***h and sticking a smiley on the end then 

[Shylala]

what are you planning wabbit?

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

so I wouldn't get away with calling someone a b***h and sticking a smiley on the end then 

No, though it has been tried many times in the past.

[Rox]

so I wouldn't get away with calling someone a b***h and sticking a smiley on the end then 

Yes you could, you just have to be careful how you word it.