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>