Changes to forum rules

erolz · Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:00 pm Post subject: Changes to forum rules

Following the latest 'crisis' re personal abuse of members by other members in a recent thread the admin team after discussion will be implementing some changes.

Before outlining those changes I will lay out the current rules.

Current rules

Personal abuse aimed at other members is not acceptable.

Any member may report a post they think is in breach of this rule.

When a post has been reported and only when it has been reported any individual mod that agrees it is in breach of the rules will quarantine that post and warn the poster. The poster can if they wish to chose to edit the post in quarantine and request its return to the original thread, or leave it in quarantine. Members that accrue 10 such warnings receive a one week suspension. Mods / admins may report posts but they may not action those posts they themselves report if they are the only person to report it.

Any mod / admin may at their discretion lock a thread for a period of up to 48 hrs if personal insults are thrown and they think retaliatory posts are likely in response.

The problem

It is clear that there is a very small set of members that continue to consistently and persistently treat the forum, it's rules and its membership with contempt and for them the sanction of a one week suspension is not sufficient means to stop them from doing this to the detriment of the site and the majority of its members.

The proposals

The first change is to have a pre-defined set of increasing sanctions against those users that reach 10 warnings more than once. There are two proposed potential sets of increased sanctions for this kind of offense and the two different option will be put to a vote from the membership as to which one will be implemented. The poll for this can be found here http://www.talkcyprus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=83870#83870 Whichever change is chosen by the membership, a line will be drawn from that date and no reports of post from before that date will accrue the poster a warning points under the new system - only future posts in breach of the rules , reported and then actioned by an admin will accrue warning points. However posters than have previously accrued 10 warnings and had a one week suspension will have this included in their future count of 'sets of 10 warnings'.

The second change is a proposal to have two levels of 'warnings' with mild insults aimed at other members accruing one warning point and 'serious' personal abuse accruing 4 warning points. Whether we go to a two tier system for the amount of warning points for an offense or stick with the current binary system were by any offense deemed to be such by a mod / admin will accrue the same one warning point regardless of if it is a mild breach or a serious one will also be put to a vote from the membership. This poll can be found here http://www.talkcyprus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=83871#83871

Note regrading the current implementation of the rules until the new rules come into force.

Prior to the recent major degeneration of behavior on the forum the reality was that all the mods / admins were operating in a very lenient manner with regards to implementing the rules. In this period a considerable number of posts were made that were in breach of a strict enforcement of the rules from numerous posters. Whilst this worked for a period in the sense that serious adult debate was still dominant over childish and pointless name calling this lenient approach to the enforcement of the rules broke down totally in a recent thread that started on the 2nd August 07. In response to this break down the mods / admins started to apply a strict enforcement of the rules on that thread. Some of those sanctioned in this new enforcement have responded by searching through historic posts and selectively reporting posts that pre date the 2nd August break down. It is the view of the admin team that it is neither right or fair to sanction posts that were made whilst the mod / admin team were operating in a lenient mode now that we have been forced into applying the rules in a much stricter way. Thus reports of posts that pre date the 2nd of August will not be actioned by mods or admins. Post after this date will be actioned as per the current rules.

repulsewarrior · Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 4:11 pm Post subject:

When a posting is removed from a thread, I would like a note to that effect placed in the space from where it was removed. In this manner, other postings written after it, but before it is removed, will not seem out if context when the offensive post is removed.

erolz · Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:21 pm Post subject:

Mete · Deputy Joined: 16 Aug 2005 Posts: 1150 Location: Boston

This will be too hard to maintain. Besides, who can even define what an insult is? I know you're trying to solve a problem but I don't know if putting more restrictions is going to help. As long as you eliminate usage of offensive words like f*ck, a**, idiot, etc., I think you'll be covered in most cases and it'll be much easier to figure out who broke the rule, and how. In addition to these, I don't think advocation of violence in any shape or form should be allowed because it's just against the philosophy of the forum.

I find it hard to believe that someone will be offended with a post that didn't include a predetermined set of offensive words as long as it didn't include any advocation of violence. For example, Kifeas called me a kid recently but am I really offended? Not really. If that's what he thinks, that's his problem, but I was offended when he said number of times that he's not going to hesitate to take back what he legally owns in the same ways. Obviously, that's an advocation of violence that we should not tolerate.

Anyway, this is your forum and you can run however you like but I wanted to share what I thought.

erolz · Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:31 am Post subject:

Thanks for you input Mete and as far as I am concerned this is your forum as much as it is mine.

Anyway here is how I see things.

The forum does not have a philosophy as I see it , beyond being a neutral space where people can have sensible and respectful discussion. It does not advocate any line or position itself. Individuals on it do that but the forum itself does not.

The point and intention of prohibiting personal attacks and personal insults aimed at other members is to encourage sensible, rational and respectful discussion of the issues relating to the Cyprus problem. The point is not to stop swearing or stop people from being offended or to censor certain points of view. The point is to try and stop threads descending into slanging matches for this adds nothing to the discussion and often undermines it as far as it is sensible and rational. It does not matter to me if you are offended or not by being called a kid. The fact remains that one member calling another a kid adds nothing of value to the forum at all and indeed can lead to an escalating circle of retaliation which distracts from real discussion of issues. These issues are too important to allow such needless and pointless personal name calling to undermine the sensible and rational discussion of them. If people want to try and have sensible rational and respectful discussion then this is a place to have it. If people want to vent their frustration and anger at other individuals as some form of therapy or to stop sensible and rational discussion then this is not the site for them.

I do not agree that the site should prohibit the advocation of violence per se to be honest. For me if that is a persons view then it is not the remit of the forum to stop them expressing that view. What I do want to stop is thread descending into 'you are an idiot' - 'no YOU are the idiot' - 'no you are a big ugly stupid idiot' - etc etc etc.

In terms of the practicalities of maintaining the rules there are issues there but they are not such that the system imo is unworkable. As to what is an insult , that is not really the criteria to be honest. The criteria is more does the post contain attacks or insults aimed at the poster rather than what the poster is saying. Yes there are times where that criteria is borderline and judgment calls have to me made but most of the time it is pretty clear cut. I do have reservations myself about a two tier system of 'severity' of insulting another member personally leading to two different levels of warning as I do think this will be very hard to apply in a consistent and fair way and prefer myself the idea of a simple 'does this post attack the poster or does it attack their ideas' and if the answer is the former they get a single warning even if it does this with direct serious insult or in a mild way. I think such a yes/no system is possible to implement in a fair and consistent manner and the intent of such a system is to try decrease pointless childish posts about other members that add no value to discussions at all and increase adult sensible rational and respectful ones that do have value.