Changes to the Rules

[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.