Rules/Guidelines proposals

[RainRat]

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.

[Unition]

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".

[Selkit]

#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.

[RainRat]

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.

[RainRat]

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.

[Selkit]

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?)

[Carthage]

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.

[Selkit]

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.

[Zen]

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!

[RainRat]

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.

[Selkit]

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.

[Zen]

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.

[Carthage]

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.

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.

[Selkit]

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.

[RainRat]

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.