Here's are proposed rules. They are not implemented yet, and may be debated here. Some of them may remain guidelines instead of rules even if they are accepted by the community.
1. PG rating. There's no age verification so nothing that would cause problems if a minor were to read.
a. Linking: You may link to sites above PG rating, but this can't be used to get around the rules. For instance, you may link to furaffinity even though it contains X-rated material, but a thread for linking to X-rated material would not be ok.
b. Drugs: You may discuss, say, legalization. But how-to and planning are not ok.
2. No personal attacks, no matter how subtle you think you are being. If you must debate, attack the position, not the speaker.
3. Try to avoid replying to spam, speculating on whether a thread will be moved, leading people to think you are a forum moderator, or other things that make more work for moderators. Use the "report to moderator" button that is on each post. For forum help, try to use the "Forum Help" board if possible instead of PMing an admin/moderator; consider whether it would be useful for other people to read.
4. Not every thread has to become a thread of randomness. This is especially true on the Events Board. The are already a couple random threads in the General board, plus the Forum Games board. Also, use your judgment, but some things are better discussed via Private Message.
5. Every post of the board is kept around, so there is usually no need for the Quote function when replying. Of course, if you're replying to a post a few pages back, or responding to a specific point, then it makes sense to use Quote.
6. There's no rule against thread necromancy (posting to a thread that hasn't been posted in a while), but sometimes outside factors change, and it's better to leave old threads alone. Use your judgment.
Specific board rules:
1. Events board:
a. The subject lines will be tagged [PROPOSED], [ON CALENDAR], [POSTPONED], [CANCELED], or [OLD] as appropriate. If they aren't, a moderator will change the subject line. After the subject line is changed to [OLD], it will be moved to the corresponding Event Archive. There is no restriction against posting to the Event Archive, for instance, people may want to post pictures, or thank the host.
b. If an event remains [PROPOSED] for a while (several months) without activity it may also be moved to the Event Archive. If there is interest again, it is usually better to start a new thread, since plans made several months ago are usually no longer applicable. If they are still applicable, the organizer may ask a moderator to move it out of the Event Archive.
I'd like to add any discussion of illegal material to 1) - ranging from the extreme "I just set a schoolbus full of children on fire!" to the tame "Click this link to download this commercial game for free".
#1 is incredibly subjective (Media rating groups can't even decide what constitutes "PG" half the time; Some groups think PG is zero profanity and that Bambi ought to be PG), and unfortunately for that very reason I have to voice my disagreement with it. I'm disappointed with venues in which someone else's unsupervised child is the lowest common denominator restricting the adults from discussing adult concepts as they see fit.
#2 is even more subjective: What's a personal attack? Will this somehow tie into the obnoxious notion the furry fandom has as an unwritten rule that any disagreement at all is a personal attack? Without clarification, I'm quite wary of this. Chiefly, it's the reason why I'm avoiding Rino's own clone forum like the plague, as excessive censorship bothers me deeply.
Otherwise it's looking good, Rat and Uni.
1. Have to agree with Uni on that. Although we don't want to put a damper on discussion, say if you wanted to discuss the Robert Pickton case, as long as you weren't going into how-to or advocacy.
To Selkit: 1. Well, we have cartoon animals all over the site, and no age verification, so I don't want people coming across to be like "Cartoon animals; well this is an ok site for children ... OH GOD WHAT ARE THEY DOING TO EACH OTHER?!"
Yeah, I know it's pretty hard to hold a site owner responsible for what users post, but I think we're better off avoiding that here.
Anyway, profanity not banned in itself.
I am willing to stick my neck out a bit if you want to discuss serious medical topics; breast self-exam, birth control, etc.
Anything that would always be put behind age warnings in typical western society, probably not ok here.
2. The ideal situation would be if people who disagree could debate the pros and cons of their viewpoints. Working backwards from there, the two extremes to be avoided would be:
a. Locking the thread, or trying to stop the conversation just because people disagree.
b. Letting one side chase the other away with aggressive behavior without addressing any of the underlying causes of the disagreement.
After looking at the "Stepping up for the females" thread, I propose adding that if something is written in the form of a personal attack, it's still not allowed even if it doesn't name someone specific:
NO I hate lesbians.
NO DarkMoonGreyWolf is an idiot.
OK DarkMoonGreyWolf's idea is completely impractical because of X and Y.
Once again, while I agree with the premise of regulating out anything that could qualify as genuine hate speech (We're Canadian-run; The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a de-facto default rule here anyways!), that's another one of those shifty gray areas. Theological discussions will bring out "I dislike X", political discussions will be aimed at a party, not an individual, and so on. I would sincerely hope a deeper guideline could be put in place (Hell, template it from the Charter; It even covers the basic issues your proposal should touch upon, Rat). I'd prefer that we still be permitted to have an opinion regarding politics, theology or otherwise, without being moderated into silence simply to err on the side of caution.
(Edit: Promises of opinion censorship upon anything even perceived as negative, are precisely why I have refused to even examine "that other forum" for the local area. I believe you know the one I am referring to. I hope and trust you'll err on the side of moderate to minimal intervention?)
I want to support the free expression of all opinions here, and support allowing everyone to get their two cents in, but realistically we've seen in the Step up for Females thread over the last couple of days what even the most civil attempts at expressing opinions can do.
There should be a guideline in place for how long something like that should be allowed to go on before it just gets shut down. Also, something like that needs to be moderated, no matter how much it sucks to be the one censoring something. Sometimes some really inflammatory things get said, and they only prolong the arguments. If we -REALLY- want to keep a measure of decency and civility around here we may have to start shutting people up by force.
I do agree with Carthage. When a prophylactive measure like posting guidelines fails to deter inappropriate behavior, the last option may end up being moderation or even expulsion. I would personally prefer to see some clear and extended guidelines for offenses that immediately step over the ban lines, and other points to outline where a moderator will step in on issues that are not specifically named. Good conduct from all members is an admirable desire, but reality rarely lines up with it. Personally, I would suggest starting with some "One offense only" guidelines drawing upon the Charter for a list of offenses leading to immediate moderation or further action: Hate speech against a creed, gender, gender identity, race, or nationality. Something that even a casual and objective observer would see clear-cut intended offense involved. Step down from there and broaden out to guidelines for moderation, erring on the side of caution and popular complaint from the user-base.
: RainRat March 18, 2011, 08:13:39 -06:00
After looking at the "Stepping up for the females" thread, I propose adding that if something is written in the form of a personal attack, it's still not allowed even if it doesn't name someone specific:
NO I hate lesbians.
NO DarkMoonGreyWolf is an idiot.
OK DarkMoonGreyWolf's idea is completely impractical because of X and Y.
Why be specific to lesbian hate and not general bigotry? No hate, simple. Follow the Canadian laws on hate crimes and hate speech, since they actually trump the charter of rights and freedoms. This is also a forum, on the internet, hosted who knows where. They can't sue. There are three people in charge of these forums, take a look at the recent crap from the last month, and start giving out warnings and banning. There are a bunch of cases that deserve it.
And yes, I am aware of what it takes to moderate and run a forum. I am still an active moderator on another forum that had five times the daily traffic of BCF. We managed to keep it very clean and all ages, even with that many people. I know the amount of work it takes, and expect this to take some time, but the three of you may want to consider some warnings and maybe some temporary bans over these comments. Having a friend and open forum does not mean you have to put up with crap on your boards, take control!
The rules aren't just supposed to be against sexism, any personal attack, even if it doesn't name a specific individual is not allowed; I just listed some examples.
I don't want to stop religious and political discussion either. I just think it can be done without personal attacks. I know there are some Christian furries; if they want to self-identify as such, they should be able to do so without fear of hate speech. I think both sides could learn from each other if they had a civil discussion instead.
So long as I don't end up banned or reprimanded for telling a theist (Christian or any particular flavor at all) not to wish their silly dogma on me, sure, expand it to religion. I would expect the same level of respect for my non-belief as they receive for their belief. However, I strongly disapprove of moderation applied to any topic that has not generated a complaint beyond one person whining because X said Y about Z, and they need their blankie now. Don't become a tool for any whining sod with a thin skin to swing about. The vast majority of us are adults here. Real society does not operate as a crowd of yes men. Someone can, and will disagree with you. They should not be silenced for the fact; They should be quite reasonably ready to accept criticism in return, should they present an idea which tramples on some aspect of another human being.
: RainRat March 18, 2011, 10:04:49 -06:00
The rules aren't just supposed to be against sexism, any personal attack, even if it doesn't name a specific individual is not allowed; I just listed some examples.
I don't want to stop religious and political discussion either. I just think it can be done without personal attacks. I know there are some Christian furries; if they want to self-identify as such, they should be able to do so without fear of hate speech. I think both sides could learn from each other if they had a civil discussion instead.
Ah, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you meant you were going to add those examples as new rules, when they are specific examples. My mistake.
Political and religious discussions can be done civilly. Tricky, but can be done. The issue is there are a handful of trolls running lose and they don't seem to be disciplined in any way, regardless of where they post, or in what context. There hasn't been that many problems with the political or religious threads either (well not too many at least), but other more bold threads are getting the heat when they really shouldn't.
It's always hard to moderate and be fair, especially when text is subjective and interpretable. I get your point there for certain.
: SelkitSo long as I don't end up banned or reprimanded for telling a theist (Christian or any particular flavor at all) not to wish their silly dogma on me, sure, expand it to religion. I would expect the same level of respect for my non-belief as they receive for their belief.
As long as you avoid referring to it as "silly dogma" I'm sure you'd be fine. Everyone needs to be
respectful of everyone else no matter what their personal beliefs. In order for this to work we all need to put bias aside. Discussion of politics, religion and philosophy are all based on some form of opinion, but we don't need to be abusive in our expression of those opinions.
While moderation seems to be becoming necessary, it's important that whoever is in charge of moderating certain forums or threads not allow their own opinions to colour their decisions about dealing with certain posts and posters.
I'm sorry, Carthage, but the requirement that I be falsely obsequious towards a private belief made public, is a disturbing one. Nothing is sacred beyond the skull of its believer; False propriety and piety are as equally offensive as a vulgar and untrue assault; They're both falsehoods.
Disagreement, I have absolutely no interest in putting a stop to. Disagree with every point they bring up if you want. Comment on the content of their position, not the person.
I've seen a lot of online communities, and I've seen how toxic the discussion gets when personal attacks go unchecked; and I've seen how well they can go when both sides know they can't "win" by personal attacks.
PS. There's also a time and place for that kind of discussion. If someone mentions in passing they are a Furry Christian in the Introduction forum, that's not the place to have that debate.
Selkit,
: Selkit March 18, 2011, 11:00:41 -06:00
Nothing is sacred beyond the skull of its believer
By that logic we shouldn't even be trying to determine what is acceptable behaviour, which is the entire purpose here.
Sacred, and respectful are not the same thing. No one is asking you or anyone to
like the beliefs or opinions of others, only that you accept that they have a different position and don't be abusive about the fact that you don't necessarily agree with it.
That line of respect and acceptable behaviour is what needs to be drawn. We all want to see discussion and civil debate continue. But attacks need to stop.
(Edit: Methinks I should read Rat's postings more thoroughly before I jam a foot in my mouth; If you are planning to moderate against directed ad-hominem nonsense, you'll hear no objection from me whatsoever. It's the sole cardinal rule in the scientific forums I frequent. Attack the point, not the person, if you really must attack something outright, essentially. Mea culpa.)
Perhaps I should clarify why I would object in this particular case. It is their business to state their belief, none of my business to rebuke or pre-emptively challenge an indirect statement that does not involve me or imply involvement, and none of their business to offer blessings in its name on me, assume I partake, or otherwise attempt to involve me in theistic pursuits on an unrelated neutral forum. The same goes for any crass assumption about political affiliation, or any other topic which frankly has no neutral business operating outside of its native venue. I would like to be assured the ability to say "No, I disagree, and do not approve". I do not suffer evangelists or political emissaries lightly, after having witnessed the slow decay wrought on friends and family by both, the repeated attacks on lifestyle I and others have to fend off from those avenues, and many other issues that for similar reasons should not be brought up in public.
TL;DR?
It's a hot-button with me, I have a long running history of extremely unpleasant encounters with these subjects, and I would like to remain able to speak negatively when confronted directly on the issue in a secular or apolitical topic.
Speaking negatively should certainly be allowed, but within reason. Under your particular circumstances you have examples to cite, and justifications for your frustrations with religion. Using those in a discussion about religion to explain your opinion would be better than just saying "Take your silly dogma and GTFO".
Again, the difference between being respectful and civil, and attacking people.
Unquestionably, Carthage. Part of being a humanist is respect for fellow human beings themselves, regardless of nationality, creed, ethnicity or education. An overt attack on the person behind the message is rather crude at best.
I motion that if an account is created and the creator makes zero (0) posts after a period of six months, that the account should be terminated. There are accounts that were setup two years ago and the creator has not left a single post since that time (nor even signed in). It creates an inaccurate representation of the true membership of BC Furries.
I know that in the Events Board it can be kind of difficult to find some important piece of information about an event when the thread is like 10 pages long and the event is about to start. I am setting out some guidelines:
1. If your reply is only that you will or will not make it to an event, use the Registration button that the calendar provides. But if you have information to share as well, by all means, post both.
2. Event organizers, edit the first post in the thread to include all the information that someone coming to the event would need to know.
3. Event organizers, consider whether using a poll to collect information would suit your needs.
4. Do not remove the description of the event from the subject line when replying. It makes it more difficult to keep up with multiple events when monitoring using Recent Posts.
These are guidelines only; use your judgement, these are intended to make planning events smoother. Noone will get a warning or ban for good faith attempts to help plan an event. Use the "Report to moderator" if you see a particularly obvious example, a mod will send them a Private Message reminder(does not count as a warning or lead to a ban).
: RainRat March 15, 2011, 06:40:08 -06:00
1. PG rating. There's no age verification so nothing that would cause problems if a minor were to read.
b. Drugs: You may discuss, say, legalization. But how-to and planning are not ok.
This is currently the rule that the mods are going by when deciding the moderate threads. If you disagree with a mod action or want to refine the rules, this is the place to do so, not the moderated thread.
This is where I'm coming from:
Marijuana is still illegal here (ok, so maybe some people have medical marijuana, but say if you got your doctor to prescribe you morphine, if you posted "Hey if you like morphine meet me at blablabla", then we're still going to think something is up.)
We know we have members as young as 12, so we can't put out those "Only enter if you're above 18 pages"
If we let people discuss their marijuana deals here, then next thing you know, they'll be discussing deals for stronger stuff. Where do we draw the line? We let people deal according to our personal opinion on what's ok rather than following any laws?
New Proposal:
Size of inline images:
I've been calling these out when they go way overboard, but I feel like I should make a guideline so people know what's reasonable.
How about:
-No more than 900 pixels in width.
-No more than 250KB of inline images posted within a short period of time.
: RainRat September 09, 2013, 07:21:37 -06:00
New Proposal:
Size of inline images:
I've been calling these out when they go way overboard, but I feel like I should make a guideline so people know what's reasonable.
How about:
-No more than 900 pixels in width.
-No more than 250KB of inline images posted within a short period of time.
Is there a possibly way where the code or whatever for the site could be changed to automatically resize images to be smaller if they go over a size limit? That would be kind of cool. :3
I could have the forum reject images wider than a certain width, but I don't see an option to resize. That still leaves the open issues:
-Is 900 pixels a reasonable limit?
-The limit should still be public so poster know even if they find a loophole, it's not acceptable to exceed it.
-There's no way to set programmatic limit on the number of KB posted in a short period of time.
Recent posts have brought to my attention that maybe I need to clarify the personal attacks policy. It includes stuff like "Person X is a liar", "Person X is a slut". Even if it's someone that everyone likes to gang up on, the personal attack policy applies to everyone.
One reason is that most of the time, it's hard or impossible to prove that an accusation is not true.
I don't want to take away any rights from the people running furmeets. You are of course allowed to say "I will not allow Person X at my furmeet." If you want to discuss reasons with Person X, you should take it to private messages.
On the other hand, I don't want to give a safe haven to thieves or dangerous people, so perhaps there should be an exception for when it's in the public interest and the facts are not in dispute.
Thoughts on where the line should be drawn?
People should not be able to be accused of being thieves if you feel
: RainRat November 15, 2013, 03:01:48 -07:00
One reason is that most of the time, it's hard or impossible to prove that an accusation is not true.
however if it's proven that they indeed steal, warnings about the person should be allowed to be posted. Avoiding drama is a delicate thing, you might just want to have no exceptions to the rule and leave it to word of mouth.
EVERYONE SHOULD BE A MOD
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSi7OVn5jvTe2JS9Eg1LoYsxHTC8_-X0TDFk3VuCsRRnfBlJvlFkg)
: kohl September 03, 2014, 03:40:56 -06:00
EVERYONE SHOULD BE A MOD
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSi7OVn5jvTe2JS9Eg1LoYsxHTC8_-X0TDFk3VuCsRRnfBlJvlFkg)
I don't know about THAT, but I mean... that could get crazy.
if i were a MOD., i would modify everyone else thinking, so that they would post mundane things..... oh, and have everybody call me "BROTHER, BIG".
(orwell was onto something).