Forum rules update

I was taught to always criticize leadership. I think it is because I grew up in a free country.
Can't blame me, I'm a product of my culture.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

true enough..but there is such a thing as too much criticism..
its not the use,its the abuse..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I never use the ignore button.
I didn't need a button to ignore someone.

 

What do you use, a blindfold?

 

A shotgun.

 

I used to think so, but some posters are so inane or insane that I can't even stand to be distracted by them for one second.

 

A hypothetical

I'm curious what our neighbor comes up with, but in the meantime, a hypothetical:

• A is a known bigot.
• B is a member of the class A despises.
• C is just this guy, you know?
• C gets into a dustup with B.
• B argues back.
• A, who already hates B according to his bigotry, complains about B.
• B is banned, despite not having offended C, at whom the comment in question was directed.
• Furthermore, A acknowledges publicly that B's statement would not be offensive if B was not part of the class that A is known to hate.
• Meanwhile, A has directly threatened B.
• Site administration bans B in accord with A's complaint.
• A faces no administrative sanction regarding his threat.​

If something like that ever happened, then certainly I could imagine someone asking the question Giambattista has. To the other, I'm curious why he asks it, as well.

 

I'm curious:

Where in the forum rules can I find a prohibition on the following:

"encouraging illegal activities / advising criminals how to avoid prosecution"

I'm reading through the latest rules, and not seeing it. There's a reminder that one may be held legally responsible for one's statements, and that material which is judged to endanger members will be removed. But nothing against advocacy of illegal activity or the like, as such, and certainly nothing in the "bannable offenses" section. What gives?

 

I would first ask how do you define "encouraging illegal activities"? Also what constitutes "advising criminals how to avoid prosecution"? Would you ban all the CSI & forensic programs on TV because they might be giving criminals good ideas to use in covering up their crimes? Have you seen any examples of what you are talking about?

 

it really doesn't matter what the reason is.
what matters is that it's applied equally.
if it cannot be applied equally then the reason is biased.

 

In the first instance encouraging illegal activities would be in most cases illegal in and of itself. You probably would not get banned outright, but you might expect the appropriate authorities to be notified. I'd rather hear from a moderator, or even be banned than to find a uniform at my front door, or worse.

The second, would probably legally fall into a category protected as free speech. Still I would think the moderators could as a policy action. And policy in a situation like this where "we" are allowed free access to a privately owned forum does not really have to be published. The community as a whole functions better when rules and policy are published but I would not think it is a legal requirement, that would prevent action.

Where there is no fee for service, posting on a privately owned forum is a privilege rather than a right.

 

Unfortunately we have no way to examine it this specifically, as the offending posts were apparently removed before I got eyes on them. If anyone has more data, I'm all ears.

But my question isn't really over these kinds of details - just the basic policy. Reading the guidelines/rules, my impression had been that Sci operates under the usual disclaimer of any legal culpability for what members post (hence the stuff on "you may be held legally liable for stuff you post" warning). I.e., I'd read it as a "post at your own risk" issue, and not an actual prohibition as such. The implication, to me, seemed to be that material dealing with illegal activity would remain, and it was up to the poster to deal with any legal ramifications of such, with Sci washing its hands.

Of course it is perfectly understandable that moderation will need to remove any material that they feel places Sci itself in legal jeopardy. But, again, there is no indication that posting such is itself a punishable offense (beyond the removal of said material, of course). Nothing in the "bannable offenses" section says anything about that. Nor does the actual info given in relation to this ban indicate such - rather than citing legal liability, it invokes a defense of the character of the forum (specifically, that it doesn't condone law-breaking).

One concern with that sort of approach is that it sets a precedent that SciForums actively polices the post content in such a regard. Which will potentially make it difficult for Sci to disclaim legal liability for the contents of posts here. Once you've accepted responsibility to police the contents for illegal material, you can't then turn around and claim that posters are themselves solely liable for what they post. I wonder if a more hands-off approach would not actually imply less problematic liability for Sci when it comes to this stuff.

 

Another thing I'm confused about:

The recently-revised rules contain multiple clear-cut statements that the contents of PMs are to remain strictly private, and not be posted in public without the express consent of their authors.

Except I could swear I just asked about exactly such things a couple of weeks back, and was told that anything that lands in your inbox is now "public" as far as moderation is concerned, and that prohibitions on posting private communications only applied to much stronger things like hacking someone's account and publicizing their private stuff. What gives? Has there been a change in this policy? Was I misinformed before? Exactly what is the policy on PMs - is it an offense to publicize them, or not?

 

We've had it in the past were people posted stuff up just to piss of other members, they are called "Private Message" because they are suppose to be private (between two or three people), so in short "It's not okay to publish them, here or anywhere else period, unless the other person that was a part of the private message allows you the right".

The moderators "do not have access to private messages", this means if you say you received a message, we can't confirm that. Only an administrator can. (And that is with some tinkering)

Private messages between members and Moderators and/or Administrator can occasionally be posted in the Moderator lounge but only if they warrant being posted there. How I mean is if a Moderator want to prove that someone is harassing them they can in that subforum. In some past instances it has been very revealing about various members attempting to manipulate the moderators to act against one another while not knowing that discussion was actually be held about their operation inside the subforum. (Of course that wasn't exposed to the membership, which is why some ex-members burned a lot of effigies and spouted comments at moderators or administrators)

 

if i am not mistaken PMs are indeed "public" as far as moderation is concerned.
if i understood correctly all PMs are being monitored by the administration.
then again i could never understand some things.

 

Ah, no that's not the case, Private messages are just that "Private" (unless of course passed around behind peoples backs, then it becomes a completely different kettle of fish)

 

well then i misunderstood the person that explained it.

 

Thanks for the clarification Stryder.

However, I think that you and Tiassa may need to spend some time getting on the same page on this issue:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2781414&postcount=98

After that (recent) exchange, in which I explicitly asked about this, I was left with a very different understanding of the policies than you propound here.

 

I think Tiassa was posing you can post them publicly however you risk having the person you were communicating with being upset if you didn't ask confirmation. We then of course have to act on a person being upset (So think carefully before posting).