Rules

[Seattle]

I saw a post in Cesspool where a post was moved. I can't say that it shouldn't have been moved there (it wasn't mine). I just noticed that one reason given for moving it there was that it violated the site rules and in particular the "stereotyping" section.

I realized that I had never really seen any rules for this site so I looked under the headings at the top of every page and there was nothing there (unless I missed something). I then went to the main page and scrolled all the way down and there is something about "rules" and I clicked on that. This seems to be a legalistic boilerplate to be agreed to before signing up for the site.

There was nothing about "stereotyping" there. I then came to this subforum (Site Feedback) and saw the sticky about rules and clicked on it. There are 5 pages of rules. There's more rules than would be required to run the United Nations surprisingly. Even there, I see nothing about a stereotype section?

I don't really care whether there is a stereotype section or not. I'm just curious how a site like this came to develop 5 pages of rules? It's a bit of an overkill isn't it?

Why are 5 pages of rules needed and why are they "hidden" in the least frequented subforum on the Site?

I'm sure no one has actually read all 5 pages of rules, why would they? It just struck me as kind of funny and kind of delusional. Maybe there is some entertaining backstory?

 

[Sarkus]

I don't really care whether there is a stereotype section or not.

But for those that are ...

Rule "I7. Stereotyping a member based on his or her membership of a group (e.g. his or her race, religion, country of origin, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation) is unlikely to be conducive to civil discussion and will usually attract moderator attention. It is acceptable to point out similarities and differences among groups, but only as long as this is supported by argument or evidence."​

 

[James R]

I then came to this subforum (Site Feedback) and saw the sticky about rules and clicked on it. There are 5 pages of rules. There's more rules than would be required to run the United Nations surprisingly.

Thanks for your feedback, Seattle! It's always fascinating to hear your opinions on things.

Even there, I see nothing about a stereotype section?

Probably TL;DR. You young people have such short attention spans, these days.

Luckily, there is a summary for people like you.

I don't really care whether there is a stereotype section or not.

It won't be a problem until and unless you fall foul of that particular rule. I guess you can just wing it and deal with what comes.

I'm just curious how a site like this came to develop 5 pages of rules? It's a bit of an overkill isn't it?

It's not overkill. We found in the past that our members like to have clear guidelines on what is an is not acceptable on this forum. Without such guidelines, moderation can sometimes seem arbitrary, and possibly biased. This way, both moderators and general members know where they stand. At least, the ones who can manage to maintain concentration long enough to read through the rules.

Why are 5 pages of rules needed and why are they "hidden" in the least frequented subforum on the Site?

They are not hidden. They are in a sticky thread that is prominently displayed at the top of the list of threads in Site Feedback.

If I could, I would create a link to the rules, or similar, in a more prominent place (e.g. from the homepage). Alas, I am unable to do that.

Maybe you should petition the site owners if you're concerned. Good luck with that.

I'm sure no one has actually read all 5 pages of rules, why would they?

It's probably a mistake to assume that everybody is the same as you. Something to consider.

It just struck me as kind of funny and kind of delusional.

Delusional, eh? Delusional on your part, or somebody else's? How so?

Maybe there is some entertaining backstory?

Maybe there is.

 

[Seattle]

What would you say that site owners own, other than the rules of course? Why do they not take your advice? Why moderate for a site that you don't own and where they don't take your advice?

Your position is that I think everyone is like me and that I'm wrong that most people don't read or even find those rules? You think that most people have read those rules?

I'm always find your take on these things interesting.

Oh, young people like me with short attention spans and the summary for people like me...that's personal isn't it? I believe that's against one of the rules? I won't report you however as it's just between friends.

 

[Seattle]

But for those that are ...

Rule "I7. Stereotyping a member based on his or her membership of a group (e.g. his or her race, religion, country of origin, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation) is unlikely to be conducive to civil discussion and will usually attract moderator attention. It is acceptable to point out similarities and differences among groups, but only as long as this is supported by argument or evidence."​

Thanks Sarkus, good to know.

 

[billvon]

What would you say that site owners own, other than the rules of course? Why do they not take your advice? Why moderate for a site that you don't own and where they don't take your advice?

Most moderators are volunteer. In general, owners recruit moderators so they don't have to be on the site all the time.

The owners own the site. They pay the hosting fees and get the income from any advertising on the site.

I moderate a few forums, and on one forum in particular the rules started out quite short, but have since grown to about 3 pages. (One main list that's about 2 pages long, another one for clarifications that's about a page and a half.) They grow generally because people will (for example) get a warning for a personal attack, then reply "but what I said wasn't an attack! HYPOCRITE! HATER!" etc etc.

So the rules get expanded a bit to explain what a personal attack, or a troll, or spam is.

 

[James R]

Seattle:

What would you say that site owners own, other than the rules of course?

See billvon's post, above. You understand the concept of owning an internet site, I hope.

Why do they not take your advice?

I don't give them advice.

Why moderate for a site that you don't own and where they don't take your advice?

I don't give them advice.

I moderate here because it's fun.

Your position is that I think everyone is like me and that I'm wrong that most people don't read or even find those rules?

Yes. Well done reading that far!

You think that most people have read those rules?

Most of which people?

If you're really interested, you could start a poll and find out, rather than asking for my guess.

I'm always find your take on these things interesting.

Thanks for the feedback, Seattle!

Oh, young people like me with short attention spans and the summary for people like me...that's personal isn't it?

Are you a young person? Interesting. It's as personal as you want it to be, I guess. Do you resemble my comments?

I believe that's against one of the rules?

?

I won't report you however as it's just between friends.

Friends?

 

[Seattle]

Seattle:

See billvon's post, above. You understand the concept of owning an internet site, I hope.

I don't give them advice.

I don't given them advice.

I moderate here because it's fun.

Yes. Well done reading that far!

Most of which people?

If you're really interested, you could start a poll and find out, rather than asking for my guess.

Thanks for the feedback, Seattle!

Are you a young person? Interesting. It's as personal as you want it to be, I guess. Do you resemble my comments?

?

Friends?

Yes, buddy. I won't report you to yourself. It doesn't matter if I resemble the remarks or not. Most of your attempted slights don't resemble me but that's generally how slights work, isn't it?

If I were to call you an arrogant idiot that would be personal, whether you resembled that remark or not. This isn't a hard concept to grasp and I feel sure that you do.

I agree that it's important to have fun. See buddy, we agree!

I guess it's fun to keep the right people around and not the others. It's a balancing act, you're following me right? I think you can follow that? I think you're a people person just like me.

 

[James R]

Now that you mention slights, Seattle, we could have a discussion about your double standards in that regard. Seems like it's one rule for you, one for everybody else. Are you up for that, buddy?

 

[Seattle]

Now that you mention slights, Seattle, we could have a discussion about your double standards in that regard. Seems like it's one rule for you, one for everybody else. Are you up for that, buddy?

Sure, friend. I haven't stated a rule for myself. Short of hate speech and insults like calling people "a liar" I'm not pushing for more rules.

Anyone here, including you, that would search through the archives to find some perceived slight by me would find many more by that person rather than toward that person where I'm concerned.

I generally post without slighting anyone. I don't think you want to try to embrace that standard so we probably shouldn't pursue that one.

 

[sideshowbob]

insults like calling people "a liar"

A fat man has no right to be insulted if somebody points out that he's fat.

 

[Seattle]

A fat man has no right to be insulted if somebody points out that he's fat.

Sure he does. If you are stupid do you have a right to get upset if someone calls you stupid? What if you aren't very good looking? Is it OK to address you as "Hey, ugly, get over here"?

 

[sideshowbob]

If you are stupid do you have a right to get upset if someone calls you stupid?

No.

What if you aren't very good looking? Is it OK to address you as "Hey, ugly, get over here"?

I said you have no right to be insulted by the truth. I didn't say it was "OK" to tell the truth.

 

[Seattle]

No.

I said you have no right to be insulted by the truth. I didn't say it was "OK" to tell the truth.

A distinction without meaning? Why would it not be OK to tell the truth if someone has no right to be insulted by the truth?

The fat man isn't insulted by being fat. He is insulted because you called him fat.

The liar isn't insulted by the lie, if he in fact told a lie. He is insulted by your comment. Also people often use the word "liar" too freely. If someone is just mistaken that is not a reason to call them a "liar" but that's frequently the case.

 

[sideshowbob]

Why would it not be OK to tell the truth if someone has no right to be insulted by the truth?

If your favorite aunt is wearing the most hideous dress you have ever seen, you probably shouldn't tell the truth. If you catch somebody on the internet in a lie, the lie should be exposed.

 

[wegs]

You can have polite and reasonable discourse (online or offline), and still convey ''the truth'' to someone. Calling people names usually shuts down conversations, it doesn't build learning opportunities. Social media has taken ''talking past each'' other to new levels.

 

[Seattle]

If your favorite aunt is wearing the most hideous dress you have ever seen, you probably shouldn't tell the truth. If you catch somebody on the internet in a lie, the lie should be exposed.

You shouldn't have manners on the internet? Why not say, "I don't think that is correct." Telling someone that "you're a liar" says more about you than them.

 

[sideshowbob]

You shouldn't have manners on the internet?

My whole point is that telling the truth is not an insult. Manners is a separate issue.

Why not say, "I don't think that is correct."

You say, "I don't think that is correct," when an honest mistake has been made.

Telling someone that "you're a liar" says more about you than them.

No it doesn't.

 

[Seattle]

My whole point is that telling the truth is not an insult. Manners is a separate issue.

You say, "I don't think that is correct," when an honest mistake has been made.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it says you have no manners. Manners isn't a separate issue when the topic is insults.

 

[sideshowbob]

Calling people names usually shuts down conversations, it doesn't build learning opportunities.

Pointing out a lie is not "calling people names". And the only way a lie "builds learning opportunities" is if it's exposed as a lie.