The Rules of Respect and MW Guidelines

[mol]

The Rules of Respect and MW Guidelines

1. Keep the language PG-rated, as many minors post here. "Crap" works when you want to say "shit", for example. Same goes for image files...a funny pic is fine, but porn is unacceptable. Do not post any obscene, vulgar, or sexually-explicit material here. If it can't go on public TV, it can't go here. Do not try to use NYPD Blue or Nip/Tuck as a way to argue about this rule. We have a word filter in place that has been in place for years. Do not try going around the word filter to display words that we are filtering out...and we mean that literally. Do NOT go around the word filter to display the ACTUAL WORDS we are filtering out. The filter replaces these so-called 'bad words' with other words and the words we use to replace them with change often purely for my amusement (mol).

2. Debate the idea, don't attack the poster. Calling someone "neocon filth"/"Liberal traitor"/"Fluffy bunny"/"idiot"/"dumbass"/"moron"/"crackpot"/"conservative arsehole"/"big loser", actually, any name-calling whatsoever is not a refutation of an idea, it's a verbal (yah, yah...typed, written, etc) attack of another member of this community and it will not be tolerated. Notice that we are talking about verbal attacks between members. You are free to call, for example, George Bush...a big loser, until the time comes when Mr. Bush joins the community. Then he must be respected like every other member. Also, no condescending stuff. Calling someone sweetypie, honeybunch, hun, missy, might just be the way you talk, but it can also imply a condescending tone. We have no way of knowing which way you are using the term...so if you are addressing someone directly, just use their username.

3. Racism, sexism, age discrimination, the outright bashing of a path or religion, etc is unacceptable. Debating the tenets of a religion is one thing...calling all Christians evil or saying that all Pagans are going to hell is not allowed. Proselytizing is not allowed in any form. No conversion or 'witnessing' is allowed. We are not here to spread our various religions. We are here to be friends, love and respect each other, and most importantly...learn. Tolerance is key. All religions and Paths are welcome here providing their tenets do not violate any laws or our rules. Calling someones religion "false", no matter how wrong or silly it may seem to you is not allowed.

4. No spam, advertisements, or anything of that nature is permitted via posts/PM's/or emails, unless you pay advertising fees to mysticwicks. Freeload off of someone else. Spammers are banned instantly and you won't be notified.

5. The ignore function should be used. Keep the flames to PMs, and/or put people who annoy you on ignore. Seriously. Use the ignore feature. If someone is sending you PM's that you do not like then place them on ignore and they can't send you PM's anymore. It's very simple. If someone is harassing/stalking you then PM or email an admin immediately.

6. Public posting/forwarding of PMs, karma pokes, or emails (through the site) is forbidden without the consent of the other party(s) involved unless you are sending this information to an admin to prove harassment, etc. This is private information and should be kept private.

7. Joking around is okay, but you are at the mercy of the person you are joking with. Calling your friend a "tard" is fine, provided he/she isn't offended. Please try to work out any differences of opinion on this matter via PM before reporting. YOUR next joke may inadvertently offend others; so keep that in mind before reporting someone before discussing it with them.

8. The report function is not there to be used when you lose an argument. It is there to report actions which are violations of the rules. If the admins do not see the post as a violation of these rules then there will be no moderation and we will notify the reporter of this and why no admin action was taken.

9. Political Pagan is - by nature - a very turbulent place. Things are said there that would be unacceptable anywhere else...but this does not imply that you can get away with murder. The rules are relaxed there, not non-existent. And remember...what happens in Political Pagan STAYS in Political Pagan. See rule #2.

10. All goodbye threads will be closed because all they do is cause drama in the long run, unless they are legitimate 'goodbyes' like, for example, you are moving, losing your internet connection, or something of that nature. If you want to leave MW that is your choice, PM your friends and let them know, but don't make a public spectacle of it.

11. Arguments are NOT to be carried from one thread or forum to another. Neither will things said on other forums be used as cause for discipline here...but by the same token, arguments from off-site STAY off-site. Private, real life problems between members needs to be settled in private and off of the public boards.

12. Public discussion of moderations, admin modes, and 'mol' modes is not allowed anywhere on the site except in the grievance forum. Please read the guidelines for the grievance forum below. If you violate the rules outlined here then you will be moderated. It serves several purposes, of which the most important is getting threads back on track and showing real examples of these rules in action. This goes for anything...don't even quote a moderation and say 'Thank You.' Use a karma poke instead, as some members might see that as a slap in the face. It's not worth it! No public discussion of bannings is allowed and we will NOT discuss the banning of one member with another, so don't ask!

13. Nobody is above the rules, whether they be a mod, an admin, etc.



Grievance Forum Guidelines

If an admin moderates your post you have the option of discussing the moderation in the Grievance Forum. By starting a thread in this forum you are requesting the moderation to be reviewed by the admins. Only the person moderated can start threads to discuss the moderation. No one can start it on behalf of another poster. No admin will start a thread to discuss a moderation. The discussion of the moderation will include any or all of the admins that choose to participate in the discussion. Only the original poster and admins can participate in the discussion. If there is no progress towards a resolution the thread will be closed. It is for discussions and clarification, not arguments. If there is no explanation of how the moderated post does not break the rules then there is no need for the thread.

Posting in the Grievance Forum is optional. The option to PM an admin about the moderation is still available and encouraged if the member feels the moderation is unjust but does not feel comfortable with publicly viewable discussion.

No discussion of the topics in the grievance forum should happen anywhere else on the site. (See Rule #12)

This forum is for public viewing of constructive conversation regarding moderations and not a license to publicly harass, bash or criticize the administration or other members. Threads are only to be started for legitimate disagreements with a specific moderation. Threads started without refutation of a moderation will be closed. Threads for general concerns are not allowed. Please use the Site Room for discussion of that sort.

Abuse of these rules in the Grievance Forum will lead to the poster being banned.



Now for the fine print, only...it's not so fine...it's the same size as all the rest:

All messages express the views of the author (meaning the post's author), and not the administrators of Mystic Wicks nor will the administrators or Mystic Wicks be held responsible for the content of any message.

If you feel a message is in violation of our rules and/or policies then PLEASE REPORT THE POST using the report link located in the menu underneath each post. This goes for posts made by administrators as well (after all, the admins are members of this community, too). Even if you feel someone may have already reported it...report it anyway. It's not tattling. With that said, members don't need to be politically correct all the time. Posted material may offend you. If so, step back and wonder whether it was meant to hurt you specifically. Then you may want to report it. Otherwise, learn from it or toss it aside.

The administrators of Mystic Wicks Online Pagan Community and Spiritual Sanctuary have the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread/post/signature/avatar/profile pic/etc for any reason. PERIOD! Why? Because I am sure some troll will come along eventually and find a way to skirt around the rules outlines above. It always happens. One thing that has made MW the great place that it is, is the absolute intolerance for trolls and trolling in any form.

All posts are the property of the individuals who contributed them unless otherwise specified or deemed inappropriate by the rules and guidelines. User-specific data is property of Mystic Wicks. Please do not copy any information without first contacting the site admins and/or the respective author of the previously mentioned information.

In the case of a moved thread the thread originator is notified with a link to its new location. If your thread is moved to a different forum than you originally posted it in and you feel it was not moved properly, then report the first post in the thread with a message stating WHY you feel it was wrong to move the thread and specify the forum you would like it moved back into. If, after reviewing the thread, the admins feel it should be moved back then it will be moved back. If this happens with your own thread, contact the admin or mod who moved it.

User names and accounts are never deleted (unless a user account has been dormant for more than one year and has 0 posts) so please don't ask us to do so. This would totally disrupt the flow of threads. Members cannot have more than one user name. If we (admins) find out that a member is posting under two usernames we will merge those usernames after contacting the member in question and verifying that this is, indeed, the case. If you forget your log-in, contact an admin. If you want to change your user name, contact an admin. If you have registered twice and posted under several different accounts and want them merged then please contact an administrator.

We take copyrights very seriously here. To view our 'Fair Use' policy....click here (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=12340).

If you have been banned and would like to come back to the forum then please note our 'appeals' process. First, no one that has been banned will be considered for reinstatement until 3 months after their ban (some exceptions can be made depending on the nature of the ban...read on.) Please contact me (mol) if you would like your forum privileges re-instated. We don't like banning ANYONE, so we always have open eyes and ears if someone really wants to be here. So, again, email me (mol) if you would like to be re-instated. An email discussion will begin and that is the first step. Click HERE (http://www.mysticwicks.com/sendmessage.php) to email me. The rest is between you and I. After some discussion I will present this discussion to the rest of the admins for feedback. This is not a guarantee of reinstatement...but it is a start.

A word about Privacy: All information given in the sign-up form will remain private to the Mystic Wicks Community. No information will ever be given out or sold.

These rules are subject to change at any time. However, if the rules are changed the community will be notified via a new thread outlining the change and through a community-wide email.




Discuss! Constructive suggestions are encouraged. No arguing!

[Philosophia]

I agree with it except one rule I'm confused about:

11. Arguments are NOT to be carried from one thread or forum to another. Neither will things said on other forums be used as cause for discipline here...but by the same token, arguments from off-site STAY off-site. Private, real life problems between members needs to be settled in private and off of the public boards.

What happens if the person debating in one thread states something contradictory from what they said in another thread? Are we allowed to question them on that contradiction?

[mol]

What happens if the person debating in one thread states something contradictory from what they said in another thread? Are we allowed to question them on that contradiction?

As long as it is not an argument, then I don't see a problem. The rule pertains specifically to arguments. Like two people going at it and a thread gets closed...then they start going at it in another thread. No good.

[Philosophia]

As long as it is not an argument, then I don't see a problem. The rule pertains specifically to arguments. Like two people going at it and a thread gets closed...then they start going at it in another thread. No good.

Okay! Thanks for the clarification. :hugz:

[mol]

Okay! Thanks for the clarification. :hugz:
No problem!! =]

[nightchild]

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_75.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxmk121YYUS)I thought you explained it well. I'll compley





http://www.smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb095&pp=ZNxmk121YYUS (http://smiley.smileycentral.com/download/index.jhtml?partner=ZSzeb095_ZNxmk121YYUS&utm_id=7923)

[Agaliha]

Sounds reasonable to me. I'm glad everything is clearly stated and all of that as there have been confusion about some things.

[Zibblsnrt]

8. The report function is not there to be used when you lose an argument.

Hee. I love that this has to be specified.

For Rule 10 ("Goodbye threads"), are you referring to such threads as a species barring the exceptions you give there, or the more standard flounce thread ("That's it! I'm leaving! You'll never see me again, you ungrateful bastards! *minor chord*")? I can see the obviously hostile ones like that getting tossed, but if a longstanding member was leaving the site for some non-dramacalyptic reason, I can't see why they couldn't say so in Just Talk, if just so half the userbase doesn't start wondering.

I suppose what I'm saying is that intent should matter in this one a lot more heavily than the others.

I also like the grievance system vastly better than the previous one that was in place, especially the fact that non-involved users can't participate and that it need not necessarily be challenged publicly. (I in fact didn't know the board software could restrict posts that specifically. Learn something every day, I guess.)

[«§øü£Çûttër»]

Works well for me.

[mol]

Hee. I love that this has to be specified.

For Rule 10 ("Goodbye threads"), are you referring to such threads as a species barring the exceptions you give there, or the more standard flounce thread ("That's it! I'm leaving! You'll never see me again, you ungrateful bastards! *minor chord*")? I can see the obviously hostile ones like that getting tossed, but if a longstanding member was leaving the site for some non-dramacalyptic reason, I can't see why they couldn't say so in Just Talk, if just so half the userbase doesn't start wondering.

I suppose what I'm saying is that intent should matter in this one a lot more heavily than the others.

I also like the grievance system vastly better than the previous one that was in place, especially the fact that non-involved users can't participate and that it need not necessarily be challenged publicly. (I in fact didn't know the board software could restrict posts that specifically. Learn something every day, I guess.)

You are correct. It is intent. The 'MW sucks...I am leaving threads...or, Woe is me, I can't take this place anymore' threads will be closed. However, if someone is losing internet or moving or something of that nature (really legit goodbyes or cya laters) then they will be left open. These are just fine.

Thanks for the comments....all of you. It is much appreciated. The admins and various other folks have worked very hard on working these rules and guidelines out.

Any questions and suggestions are welcome. Soon I would like to instate them and open the grievance forum and followup with an email to the community.

Or should I send out an email to the community to alert everyone that we are discussing this? Thoughts?

[Philosophia]

Or should I send out an email to the community to alert everyone that we are discussing this? Thoughts?

I think this maybe the best idea. That way people can know what is happening, etc. especially people who haven't come to the board in some time.

[«§øü£Çûttër»]

I think it would be a wise idea to let everyone know what is being tossed around, that way, a broader scope of suggestions or comments or grievances can be discussed before the 'final product' shall we say is in place.

[Agaliha]

I think this maybe the best idea. That way people can know what is happening, etc. especially people who haven't come to the board in some time.

Yeah. I think an email would be best. :)

[SSanf]

I would like to see the word "racist" added under rule two. I am sick and tired of that worn out word being tossed in every time the poster has nothing better to say and no further arguments to support their position on a subject so they result to name calling.

There was a great example in the "Japan hints of Military action in warning to N. Korea over Nuke test." thread.

http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=141051&page=3

[Xentor]

We've considered the list of examples, and decided not to make it an exclusive list. Therefore, we've added that "actually, any name-calling whatsoever" is a violation. That should include the label "racist".

[SSanf]

So, it isn't up, yet, right? I guess, it will go under "Site Discussion".

So, since the discussion is only between the mods and the poster, what if everyone else agrees with the poster? Do they PM the mods, or what?

I think people wanted some kind of input.

Can there be a poll such as

"I agree with this moderation"

"I sort of agree with this moderation"

"I don't agree with this moderation"

"This moderator really should have gotten more sleep"

???

[Xentor]

So, it isn't up, yet, right? I guess, it will go under "Site Discussion".
Right, the Grievances Forum isn't up yet. We're awaiting some community opinions. Yes, it'll probably be a part of the Site Discussion Forum.


So, since the discussion is only between the mods and the poster, what if everyone else agrees with the poster? Do they PM the mods, or what?
Apart from the high improbabability that everyone will agree with the moderated member, right now the administrators don't intend to allow a public discussion of moderation by other parties than the moderated and the administrators. That means that if third parties wish to voice their concern, yes, they have the option of using private means, like private messages or e-mail. However, if anyone tries to disturb the discussion, the administrators will hold them in contempt and remove them from the site.

[Xentor]

I think people wanted some kind of input.

Can there be a poll such as

"I agree with this moderation"

"I sort of agree with this moderation"

"I don't agree with this moderation"

"This moderator really should have gotten more sleep"

???

Mystic Wicks is not a democracy.

Problem with this kind of poll, is that it allows for favouritism, which is one of the behaviours we strive to eliminate from our admin actions.

[Carickah]

WilCO



k

[Carickah]

"This moderator really should have gotten more sleep"



I love this... but really, maybe we should have the report button read something similar... like "This poster should have gotten more sleep" ... hehe, and for MWad, it could be "This poster needs to be laid" hehehe... just a thought

[Xentor]

WilCO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilco_(disambiguation)
http://www.wilcomarshbuggies.com/models2.htm
http://www.wilco.org.uk/
http://www.gowilco.com/site_eng/complexite.htm
http://www.wilcoincorporated.com/

?


wil·co (wlk)
interj.
Used especially in radio communications to indicate agreement or compliance.

[SSanf]

OK. I was asking because of the one night trial run, that I saw. There was a moderation, that the general membership thought should be reversed and they wanted input, that night. The moderation was reversed, in the long run. So, those seemed like reasonable questions.

[stella01904]

We've considered the list of examples, and decided not to make it an exclusive list. Therefore, we've added that "actually, any name-calling whatsoever" is a violation. That should include the label "racist".

Agreed, using the term "racist" to tag a person (i.e. "you inbred racist scum sucker") is name calling. However, using the term to tag a comment or mode of thought ("that policy is inherently racist", "that comment smacks of racism") seems perfectly allowable, is it not?

[Xentor]

Agreed, using the term "racist" to tag a person (i.e. "you inbred racist scum sucker") is name calling. However, using the term to tag a comment or mode of thought ("that policy is inherently racist", "that comment smacks of racism") seems perfectly allowable, is it not?

Any kind of name calling is considered a violation. Discussing points in someone's posts is not considered name calling and thus not a violation as long as it doesn't violate any of the other rules.

Now if you'd state something like "All of your posts and your thoughts reek of racism to me", would you still be violating this rule?

[stella01904]

Which brings up the philosophical question of whether one is one's thoughts...:stooges: Fodder for a long, boring thread...

Actually, the generalization would amount to name calling, or at least "verbal" (typed?) abuse, of the "you ALWAYS....., you NEVER.... type.

Though if all the person's thoughts and posts truly did reek of racism, this would need to be addressed as well.

[Xentor]

Yes it should. For that reason, we've invented a completely new and previously unheard of option: the report button.

[Gwenhwyfar]

Well it all looks good and fair to me, but it always did. Thanks for all the effort Mol, your appreciated!

[Carickah]

Hey X,

Wilco is short for will comply. It is used in radio to indicate that instructions have been received and understood and the person saying it will abide by them. For me, its an old military thing. Sorry for the confusion.


k

[JyuMuse]

That means that if third parties wish to voice their concern, yes, they have the option of using private means, like private messages or e-mail. However, if anyone tries to disturb the discussion, the administrators will hold them in contempt and remove them from the site.

Shouldn't this be added to the rules then because it's not in them. It just says you can only discuss moderations in the grievances forum, it doesn't say you can only discuss your own moderations in the grievances forum.

[SwordsFlameSong]

One thing to note on the name calling - specifically the example given earlier of rascist/rascism etc.

If someone posts:

"Member X, your post is the one of the most rascist comments I ever read."

VS.

"This post comes across as sounding rascist to me."

I will question the first comment more than the latter as far as intent goes.

The first implies ownership of this to the quoted poster without acknowledging the second party's own perceptions of what the first poster intended.

The second example doesn't use the word "your" implying ownership but the second poster is taking ownership of their own perception of the comment.

Does this make any sense? I just ask as I need more coffee.

Also, and this is from personal experience with the ol report feature. If you feel a specific member is dogging you and can point to a number of posts that have lead you to this conclusion. Pull the links into the report you make. It gives us a clearer picture of what the reporter is experiencing and what has lead to the conclusion that has the reporting poster reporting.

[SwordsFlameSong]

And Mol, I agree that this should be sent out in the form of a community letter etc via email.

[En'arde]

Mol plagarizes. HE LIES. He goes to the Discordians on hands and knees, asking for help. He gets it AND THEN HE TURNS HIS BACK ON THEM. He lies, he lets them get rebanned for no reason, and then HE STEALS RULES FROM ROGER (aka: LittleBilly) without giving due credit. LIES AND HYPOCRISY fill this place. This includes members as well AS ADMINSTRATORS. Do not hide from the truth any longer...

PS: HIMEOBS is still watching...

[SwordsFlameSong]

This has been taken care of - no need to report. Carry on with your discussion of the new rules definition.

Thank you.



Mol plagarizes. HE LIES. He goes to the Discordians on hands and knees, asking for help. He gets it AND THEN HE TURNS HIS BACK ON THEM. He lies, he lets them get rebanned for no reason, and then HE STEALS RULES FROM ROGER (aka: LittleBilly) without giving due credit. LIES AND HYPOCRISY fill this place. This includes members as well AS ADMINSTRATORS. Do not hide from the truth any longer...

PS: HIMEOBS is still watching...

[Athena-Nadine]

Shouldn't this be added to the rules then because it's not in them. It just says you can only discuss moderations in the grievances forum, it doesn't say you can only discuss your own moderations in the grievances forum.

Yes it does, right at the beginning:

If an admin moderates your post you have the option of discussing the moderation in the Grievance Forum. By starting a thread in this forum you are requesting the moderation to be reviewed by the admins. Only the person moderated can start threads to discuss the moderation. No one can start it on behalf of another poster. No admin will start a thread to discuss a moderation.

[SSanf]

HUMP!!

If some people don't like MOL and don't like MW and MW administrators, they should just go away and spend time places they DO like and with people they DO like IMHO.

What are they hanging around here for, if they dislike it so much? Dang, if they are so bereft of friends and acceptance that they must hang in places where they dislike everything so much, if they must break in to get in, they really must have very few options. That is just plain pitiful if you ask me.

I know you already addressed it and want to get on with the conversation, but that just stuck in my craw.

Sorry about that. I am not the most self-controlled, sometimes, and I don't really want to rise above it. I am incensed. I am sure MOL was kind to them a long time. He foot the bill for their many, many hours of free entertainment. And, does so, even now, if they only come and read. Ingrates~!

[JyuMuse]

If an admin moderates your post you have the option of discussing the moderation in the Grievance Forum. By starting a thread in this forum you are requesting the moderation to be reviewed by the admins. Only the person moderated can start threads to discuss the moderation. No one can start it on behalf of another poster. No admin will start a thread to discuss a moderation.

I guess I take that differently. That sounds like only the person who is moderated can start the thread - that way a moderation won't be discussed unless the person moderated actually wants it discussed. It doesn't mean someone else can't chime in with their opinion - and what of those who were moderated who want help discussing their moderation?

I guess I don't see what the point of having an actual forum for grievances is if no one can discuss moderation but those who have been moderated. It's just public PM's - I don't see why this can't just stay private if no one can discuss moderations anyway but the person moderator who can already discuss it through PM's.

Sorry, I'm not trying to start trouble, I'm just confused.

[SwordsFlameSong]

[/b]I guess I take that differently. That sounds like only the person who is moderated can start the thread - that way a moderation won't be discussed unless the person moderated actually wants it discussed. It doesn't mean someone else can't chime in with their opinion - and what of those who were moderated who want help discussing their moderation?

I guess I don't see what the point of having an actual forum for grievances is if no one can discuss moderation but those who have been moderated. It's just public PM's - I don't see why this can't just stay private if no one can discuss moderations anyway but the person moderator who can already discuss it through PM's.

Sorry, I'm not trying to start trouble, I'm just confused.

Part of it is privacy. Not everyone wants their adminning discussion public. Those who want it viewed publicly have the choice to request such.

To the point of allowing only the moderated on to discuss the adminning - well that is to keep out flame baiting and a general free for all. The latter could well happen. But, that doesn't mean other concerned members can't pm and such.

It needs to be kept in mind that, when rolled out, it will be done so as an experiment. With anything new, we can't accurately gauge what will happen or need to be tweaked until we try. =0)

PS I personally hope this will help the community not harm - while still protecting community members and their rights. But I can't go beyond the theoretical concept myself until it is implemented and tested.

[mol]

Well it all looks good and fair to me, but it always did. Thanks for all the effort Mol, your appreciated!

Just for the record, this was not just my effort! =] The rules were built upon suggestions from several people outside this forum. Other groups (Discordian forums, Thelemic newsgroups, art forums, etc). Then I brought these suggestions to the admins and they massaged and posted more suggestions and we made amendments. I do believe it was GEBS and Peacock that actually lined out the guidelines for the grievance forum. And now it is your turn as a community to check them out and ask questions and give suggestions.

I don't believe I ever said *I* came up with these rules alone. ;) I might be able to take credit for gathering everything together, but definitely not for -writing- the entire rule-base.

As far as the community email, I will do that. Several of you have said that it is a good idea to alert the rest of the community and that is good enough for me.

Thanks for the discussion so far, folks!

[Athena-Nadine]

[/b]I guess I take that differently. That sounds like only the person who is moderated can start the thread - that way a moderation won't be discussed unless the person moderated actually wants it pdiscussed. It doesn't mean someone else can't chime in with their opinion - and what of those who were moderated who want help discussing their moderation?

I guess I don't see what the point of having an actual forum for grievances is if no one can discuss moderation but those who have been moderated. It's just public PM's - I don't see why this can't just stay private if no one can discuss moderations anyway but the person moderator who can already discuss it through PM's.

Sorry, I'm not trying to start trouble, I'm just confused.

Well, SFS beat me to it. :) Right now, it is going to be that way in order to protect both the members and the admins. It would be far too easy for a group of people with a grievance against a specific poster to use the forum as an easy platform for attacking him/her and starting a flame war. Sure, we could just close any such threads, but we all know that closing a thread does nothing to alleviate the feelings of those involved.

I knew what was meant so I didn't give it any thought. I can see how the wording can be a bit confusing, though :)

[SwordsFlameSong]

Well, SFS beat me to it. :)


I took a couple of days off from the warzone. Am on furlough. ;)

[Cat]

This looks really good to me. Kudoes to everyone who created it.

[Athena-Nadine]

I took a couple of days off from the warzone. Am on furlough. ;)
It's about time you took some time for yourself. :)

[Wolfpoet]

One thing I'd like to address.

Several threads have been closed and the Admin stated that the threads where closed due to the number of reports the thread recieved.

Now this gives the appearence that all you need to do, to close a thread you don't like, is get lots of reports on it.

Now a little of this has been addressed by the note that the Report button is not for use because one loses an argument. I'm assuming we can use the grievence forum to argue the case for re-opening a thread?

Also, some threads where closed due to bickering and baiting. Could it be an option to have the posts that involve nothing more than arguments and name-calling removed in future, rather than closing a thread? This will leave the thread that others truly want to debate in open, while those who have tried to derail it fail in their attempts to close threads they don't like.

[SwordsFlameSong]

One thing I'd like to address.

Several threads have been closed and the Admin stated that the threads where closed due to the number of reports the thread recieved.

Now this gives the appearence that all you need to do, to close a thread you don't like, is get lots of reports on it.

Now a little of this has been addressed by the note that the Report button is not for use because one loses an argument. I'm assuming we can use the grievence forum to argue the case for re-opening a thread?

Also, some threads where closed due to bickering and baiting. Could it be an option to have the posts that involve nothing more than arguments and name-calling removed in future, rather than closing a thread? This will leave the thread that others truly want to debate in open, while those who have tried to derail it fail in their attempts to close threads they don't like.


This is a very valid concern. I personally hate closing threads and only do it if it has gotten to the point where there is nothing but flaming happening or the purpose of the thread was only to cause trouble for other members.

Mol, do you think we could look into this?

[Athena-Nadine]

This is a very valid concern. I personally hate closing threads and only do it if it has gotten to the point where there is nothing but flaming happening or the purpose of the thread was only to cause trouble for other members.

Mol, do you think we could look into this?
Ditto. :)

[mol]

One thing I'd like to address.

Several threads have been closed and the Admin stated that the threads where closed due to the number of reports the thread recieved.

Now this gives the appearence that all you need to do, to close a thread you don't like, is get lots of reports on it.

Now a little of this has been addressed by the note that the Report button is not for use because one loses an argument. I'm assuming we can use the grievence forum to argue the case for re-opening a thread?

Also, some threads where closed due to bickering and baiting. Could it be an option to have the posts that involve nothing more than arguments and name-calling removed in future, rather than closing a thread? This will leave the thread that others truly want to debate in open, while those who have tried to derail it fail in their attempts to close threads they don't like.

I don't know about this one. Might need some more input on re-opening, deleting posts, etc. And no, reporting a thread alone cannot get it closed. However, if the reports are valid and against the rules outlined in the first post...and there are MANY of them...then it could lead to a thread being closed.

The grievance forum is NOT for requesting that threads be re-opened. You can PM an admin regarding this. The grievance forum is outlined as a place where someone who is moderated can start a thread regarding that moderation and discuss it with other admins. The reason for doing this in public is that some folks feel that it would be better that way. Less chance for favoritism, etc. The option of PM'ing and admin in private is always an option. The grievance forum is just another option.




Mol, do you think we could look into this?

Absolutely...that is why I said this probably needs to be discussed. =]

[Temptation]

This is a very valid concern. I personally hate closing threads and only do it if it has gotten to the point where there is nothing but flaming happening or the purpose of the thread was only to cause trouble for other members.

Mol, do you think we could look into this?


I agree. I have seen threads closed just because two people were bickering. Closing the thread punishes everyone and that is not fair. Not to mention that those threads are usually the most interesting. I'm talking mainly about PP here. It's really very frustrating.

[Lunacie]

The idea of making a thread in the grievance forum would be helpful (I think) in being able to gather input from more than one Admin to help us to get things straight in our own minds ~ sometimes just having someone else word something differently helps us to make sense of something, eh? And when we only hear back from one Admin we may feel like that person has a bias towards us or towards the issue that generated the Adminning, because we don't know how many of the other Admins were contacted by the initial Admin or what their thoughts were on the issue. So I can see how a Grievance Forum could be a good thing. And it's nice to have the choice of whether we want to make it public or keep it private. :)

About reopening a closed thread, there have been several times when I was very frustrated by having a thread closed when I really was into the topic being discussed and wanted to share my opinions or thoughts. It kind of looses momentum when you have to start a whole new thread and not all of the folks who posted in the first topic will see the new thread. Just sayin'...

[Xentor]

Threads are closed when it appears that people are unable to discuss a topic within the limitations of the current rules. It is one of the measures we can take to prevent people from continued violations. Other measures include moving posts and threads, censoring undesirable language, and finally, banning members.

Simply reporting a thread a whole lot won't get it closed. That should be obvious to anyone. Violations in the thread may lead to reports, which may lead to moderations (but aren't their only source), which may lead to closings and bannings. It's a simple and transparent process.

[SwordsFlameSong]

True but it is also dispiriting to have to close a thread because two or three people are running amok in it. It is unfair to those who want to discuss the thread topic but get silenced because a couple of the minority that may run amok.

[Lunacie]

True but it is also dispiriting to have to close a thread because two or three people are running amok in it. It is unfair to those who want to discuss the thread topic but get silenced because a couple of the minority that may run amok.

Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to get across.

[Xentor]

True but it is also dispiriting to have to close a thread because two or three people are running amok in it. It is unfair to those who want to discuss the thread topic but get silenced because a couple of the minority that may run amok.
It's a pretty unknown and long-forgotten technique called "peer pressure".

[SwordsFlameSong]

It's a pretty unknown and long-forgotten technique called "peer pressure".

Even when I was in HS I didn't bend to peer pressure. Just kept doing my thing ya know. This is why I eventually fit into every clique and was genuinely liked by many.

It does get old trying to shout around that dang 2 percent though. *

*the class ahead of mine were a bit wild and they always referred to it as that damn 2%!:hahugh:

[WiccanGoddess]

Even when I was in HS I didn't bend to peer pressure. Just kept doing my thing ya know. This is why I eventually fit into every clique and was genuinely liked by many.

Off topic, but the same here. I didn't conform to meet the needs of others. I was myself, and if it wasn't liked, tough cookies.

At that, I have noticed the rule stating we can't say 'honeybear' so on and so forth, and I am trying. As of today, I have replaced said 'honeybears' with the names of members. I'm going. The rules seem pretty reasonable. I have no complaints.

[Twinkle]

I've seen moderations on closed threads saying "I'm sick of this thread....if I get one more report it will be closed"....I've seen it more than once.

Usually all that's happening is two or three people are arguing. I've also seen peer pressure at work...asking people to stay on topic and quit arguing....doesn't seem to work.

So...what happens is that everyone gets punished for two or three people that can't control themselves...

I'm just wondering if there's a better option.

[Twinkle]

HUMP!!

If some people don't like MOL and don't like MW and MW administrators, they should just go away and spend time places they DO like and with people they DO like IMHO.

What are they hanging around here for, if they dislike it so much? Dang, if they are so bereft of friends and acceptance that they must hang in places where they dislike everything so much, if they must break in to get in, they really must have very few options. That is just plain pitiful if you ask me.

I know you already addressed it and want to get on with the conversation, but that just stuck in my craw.

Sorry about that. I am not the most self-controlled, sometimes, and I don't really want to rise above it. I am incensed. I am sure MOL was kind to them a long time. He foot the bill for their many, many hours of free entertainment. And, does so, even now, if they only come and read. Ingrates~!


And what about posts like this?

A discussion after a moderation, yet someone always has to get the last word in...and namecalling, too?

This post just incited how many people, and yet it's allowed...

And an apology I guess makes it OK.

[SSanf]

I don't think any post should be deleted unless they are illegal because that will make MW look like it is being censored and that would not sit well and it would give credence to rumors.


attack of another member of this community and it will not be tolerated. Notice that we are talking about verbal attacks between members. You are free to call, for example, George Bush...a big loser, until the time comes when Mr. Bush joins the community. Then he must be respected like every other member.The people refered to are not MW members. The poster had one single post and obviously joined with a new user name just to make that one post after being banned. At least, it sure looks that way.

[Wolfpoet]

And what about posts like this?

A discussion after a moderation, yet someone always has to get the last word in...and namecalling, too?

This post just incited how many people, and yet it's allowed...

And an apology I guess makes it OK.

I think we've discussed the usage of terms and doesn't "Ingrate" kinda fit the bill in regards to breaking the respect rule?

Considering some of these "Ingrates" where not banned and still contribute to this forum in a positive way. They consider themselves something of a "loyal opposition" trying to keep folks honest. Some of them used tactics I consider pretty stupid, you don't win debates by flaming, trolling or insulting. But others used and still use rational debate and logic.

[SSanf]

.....See post above. Not a legitimate member's post. The "some people" refered to are the "some people" who would break in and make a drive by post like that.

[_Banbha_]

And what about posts like this?

A discussion after a moderation, yet someone always has to get the last word in...and namecalling, too?

This post just incited how many people, and yet it's allowed...

And an apology I guess makes it OK.

I so agree. It happens over and again.

It's like Admins have there own Greek chorus following Admin posts or on threads like this; sometimes even quoting Admin Modding posts themselves, in order to bait others, get in their own (sometimes off forum) digs and personal grudges aired, all while playing the very system designed to protect everyone. :fpatricks

To me, this goes against everything the respect rules are supposed to be about.

[SSanf]

We are supposed to show curtesy and respect to people who join soley for the purpose of making one disruptive and insulting post and when it is reasonable to assume that since the poster seems so familiar with MW that it is unreasonable to believe that they are anything other than one of the banned???

I think not!

They deserve curtesy and respect when they break in, not to be an active member, but to throw crap on the board??? That is absurd to me.

To even think that was the first post of an aspiring new member is also absurd.

I think instead of being mad at me, you should be mad at THEM for the insult to this board and the administration. And, I think you would have been if you had only noticed that, that was the one and only post ever made under that name. But, you didn't notice that detail, I think.

[Wolfpoet]

We are supposed to show curtesy and respect to people who join soley for the purpose of making one disruptive and insulting post and when it is reasonable to assume that since the poster seems so familiar with MW that it is unreasonable to believe that they are anything other than one of the banned???

I think not!

They deserve curtesy and respect??? That is absurd to me.

I think instead of being mad at me, you should be mad at THEM for the insult to this board and the administration.

To me, this seems like a black and white issue.

The respect rules are there, they broke no argument. Obey them or post somewhere else.

These rules should apply to ALL people in ALL situations. You break them, you pay.

Now I think it's dangerous to add conditions. Can't exactly allow one person to break the respect rule and ban them and then allow someone else to break the respect rule just because they are talking about the first person.

My reading is this: you show curtesy and respect to all posters, no ifs, no buts, no maybes. Makes the Admin's life much easier to make it black and white rather than forever chasing grey, allow grey into rules and you make loopholes, make loopholes and you get an endless array of rules lawyers debating the calls.

Mol said it's not a democracy.

[WiccanGoddess]

Shouldn't respect and curtesy be shown to everyone that is a member of this forum? Anyone and everyone who posts one little word, no matter the past instances?

[_Banbha_]

We are supposed to show curtesy and respect to people who join soley for the purpose of making one disruptive and insulting post and when it is reasonable to assume that since the poster seems so familiar with MW that it is unreasonable to believe that they are anything other than one of the banned???

I think not!

They deserve curtesy and respect??? That is absurd to me.

I think instead of being mad at me, you should be mad at THEM for the insult to this board and the administration.

To whom are you asking your questions or assuming anger on someones part towards you? Please to have the curtesy to quote, or give indication, in order not to obfuscate the issue at hand.

Thank you. :)

[Xentor]

And what about posts like this?

A discussion after a moderation, yet someone always has to get the last word in...and namecalling, too?

This post just incited how many people, and yet it's allowed...

And an apology I guess makes it OK.

What moderation?

[SSanf]

I DID follow the rules!!

attack of another member of this community and it will not be tolerated. Notice that we are talking about verbal attacks between members. You are free to call, for example, George Bush...a big loser, until the time comes when Mr. Bush joins the community.THAT WAS NOT a legitmate MW member. Hence, the 1 post and 0 karma.

Just because someone breaks in under a new user name, does NOT make them a member in good standing. Therefore, they were fair game under the rules as posted.

Actually, it was a darned good demonstration, if I do say so, myself..

Now, you may not like the rules as posted. Well, that is what this thread is about. This is your chance to discuss them.

[Xentor]

I so agree. It happens over and again.

It's like Admins have there own Greek chorus following Admin posts or on threads like this; sometimes even quoting Admin Modding posts themselves, in order to bait others, get in their own (sometimes off forum) digs and personal grudges aired, all while playing the very system designed to protect everyone. :fpatricks

To me, this goes against everything the respect rules are supposed to be about.

Then maybe you shouldn't participate in these forums.

On the other hand, these rules are open for discussion right now. So how about getting in some constructive criticism while you can?

[Wolfpoet]

Shouldn't respect and curtesy be shown to everyone that is a member of this forum? Anyone and everyone who posts one little word, no matter the past instances?

I would say yes, no conditions, no buts no ifs. I read the rulses as sacrosanct, respect given to all members. The person who posted, do we know for sure he/she has been banned? No admin has posted to say they have, so how can we be sure we are not breaking teh respect rule?

Respect should be given to all who post on this forum, no exceptions. I freely admit i need to change my attitude in light of these rules and I have been doing. Some of the people here piss me off no end, but i need to treat them with curtesy.

As a guidline I would suggets we make each post as if it's MOL that we are talking to. Should eb a good base line for the respect.

[WiccanGoddess]

I DID follow the rules!!

No one said you didn't, SSanf.



THAT WAS NOT a legitmate MW member. Hence, the 1 post and 0 karma.

Just because someone breaks in under a new user name, does NOT make them a member in good standing. Therefore, they were fair game under the rules as posted.


Whether or not it was a legitmate MW member, they were a member for even the slightest of time, and even if they are known for negative occurances of the past, perhaps they started anew, and, either way, shouldn't the respect rule adhere to everyone? Granted, they've 'illegally' created a new name, but until that is guaranteed in proof, shouldn't the rule stand?



Actually, it was a darned good demonstration.

Now, you may not like the rules as posted. Well, that is what this thread is about. This is your chance to discuss them.

It's not just our chance, but yours, too, which you are doing. Kudos.

[WiccanGoddess]

I would say yes, no conditions, no buts no ifs. I read the rulses as sacrosanct, respect given to all members. The person who posted, do we know for sure he/she has been banned? No admin has posted to say they have, so how can we be sure we are not breaking teh respect rule?

That's how I see it.



Respect should be given to all who post on this forum, no exceptions. I freely admit i need to change my attitude in light of these rules and I have been doing. Some of the people here piss me off no end, but i need to treat them with curtesy.


Same here, changing of attitudes...we'll await Mol or Xentor or other's response upon the issue of 'respect' upon everyone.



As a guidline I would suggets we make each post as if it's MOL that we are talking to. Should eb a good base line for the respect.

That is true. That is a fine and dandy line drawn, WP.

[_Banbha_]

Then maybe you shouldn't participate in these forums.

Stock answer to anyone whose issues and points you do not wish to acknowledge. *yawn*


On the other hand, these rules are open for discussion right now. So how about getting in some constructive criticism while you can?

What about my point was not measured and constructive?

I get the fact that while I am somebody who has always made an effort to follow and understand the rules, it is suggested I leave....Perhaps another Admin's response is called for in our case?

[_Banbha_]

Yes, quoting myself. Here is my point about the respect rule for clarification:


I so agree. It happens over and again.

It's like Admins have there own Greek chorus following Admin posts or on threads like this; sometimes even quoting Admin Modding posts themselves, in order to bait others, get in their own (sometimes off forum) digs and personal grudges aired, all while playing the very system designed to protect everyone. :fpatricks

To me, this goes against everything the respect rules are supposed to be about.

Protecting everyone under the respect rule, and I don't have include banned members to make this point; but, there should not exceptions. This very thing has happened with unbanned members after moderations.

[SSanf]

Whether or not it was a legitmate MW member, they were a member for even the slightest of time
I do not believe they were a member for any amount, at all. I firmly believe they were trespassers and nothing more.

[WiccanGoddess]

I do not believe they were a member for any amount, at all. I firmly believe they were trespassers and nothing more.

As to whether who is a 'trespasser' and who isn't, that isn't up to us, the members, is it? Isn't that up to the admin(s)? We have rules. We follow them. No matter what. No matter what we believe. If we believe something, and said something goes against the rules, we should be dealt with accordingly, if we go against the rules with said belief. To us, they are members, until an admin declares against such.

[SSanf]

so how can we be sure we are not breaking teh respect rule?
Common sense. I have no proof that the sun will come up tomorrow, either. None the less, common sense dictates that I act as if it is going to come up.

Likewise, common sense dictates that such a post is not the first post of a new MW member nor of a just unbanned member. Therefore, it goes against common sense to treat such a post as if it is a legitimate MW member. To me, it goes against rational thinking to believe that was the post of "just another member". That post in no way deserved the "benefit of the doubt" nor did I feel it necessary to give it such benefit.


Question. If you are unbanned, do you get your karma returned? Because, this poster had none at all.

[WiccanGoddess]

Likewise, common sense dictates that such a post is not the first post of a new MW member nor of a just unbanned member. Therefore, it goes against common sense to treat such a post as if it is a legitimate MW member.

Question is this: Who are you, or we, to determine a legitimate member from a nonlegitimate? Only admins, I believe, are obliged to make the call, and until said call is made, respect and clarity all the way towards the new member. How are we to know for sure it's a member of the past? How are we to know, as we lack access to IP addresses. How are we to know it's not a new member? We're not psychic.

[WiccanGoddess]

To me, it goes against rational thinking to believe that was the post of "just another member". That post in no way deserved the "benefit of the doubt" nor did I feel it necessary to give it such benefit.
In this case, doesn't logic overtake common sense? You can't logically prove this isn't 'just another member', nor can you prove it's a 'member of the past' unless you have asked said member, talked to an admin, and/or recieved similar IP addresses from said member. Shouldn't we let the admins make the call and just simply...follow the rules? It's not up to us who deserves benefit of doubt, is it?

[SSanf]

We're not psychic.Speak for yourself. Don't speak for us. Many MW members DO have that gift.
Others are simply very perceptive.

I did follow the rules.

[WiccanGoddess]

Speak for yourself. Don't speak for us. Many MW members DO have that gift.
Others are simply very perceptive.

That said, psychic in terms of rules makes no sense. There are rules. What's so hard about following them? The most of us can't predict whether a member is legit or not. I question the admins: In cases of illigit members, do we make the call or the admins?





I did follow the rules.
I never said you didn't, but I'm questioning, not only you, but admins who read this...should we respect those we know are here only...to...'troll', for lack of better word? Does the respect rule not apply to everyone? And who makes the calls? The members or the admins? (In cases of said 'trolls'. Sorry, I can't find the right word.)

[Hellenic_Witch]

How are we to know it's not a new member? We're not psychic.

Actually, some members here are psychic!:lol:

But I agree. As WG said, we have rules and even as annoying as it is that sometimes people do come here under a different name just to start trouble. But, they don't get very far. Don't break the rules to deal with them...It is not our job. That is the territory of the admins.

[SSanf]

I am not going to post the rule for the third time. You can go back and read it. If you don't like the wording, suggest such changes as you think are appropriate.

[Lunacie]

That's always been my understanding as well, and I don't see anything in the rule changes that would make it different now. If you suspect a brand new member is a troll, or someone who has been perma-banned and is trying to sneak back in, don't respond to them at all - use the ReporT button and let the Admins handle it... if there is anything to handle.

[Kaylara]

Hello. People, you're not discussing the rules or guidelines. If you have an issue with a specific point mentioned therein, please say which one and why. If you can see room for improvement, please state where, why, and how. Please do not contrive situations for us to conjecture about. Please don't bring up past situations, because with the new system we're trying to avoid or alleviate the problems of the past. We're working towards something better, and we're asking you for assistance with that. If you have old grudges or problems, please check them at the door because they're not going to be of any constructive help, and they're probably taken care of by the new rules and guidelines.

[Kaylara]

That's always been my understanding as well, and I don't see anything in the rule changes that would make it different now. If you suspect a brand new member is a troll, or someone who has been perma-banned and is trying to sneak back in, don't respond to them at all - use the ReporT button and let the Admins handle it... if there is anything to handle.

Exactly.

[SSanf]

If I may summarize, I think what they are taking issue with is the part about "attack of another member of this community and it will not be tolerated. Notice that we are talking about verbal attacks between members." and they think it should be more inclusive and that we should talk about nice, nice about any and all, at all times, with no exceptions. At least, that is what I get out of it.

I do not for a single minute think that even one of the posters who objected to my post really believes that was a legitimate MW member no matter their protestations that "it could have been". That being the case, I find it hard to believe that they actually think I broke the rule as currently written.

If you talk badly about anyone whom-so-ever, even those intent on causing havoc to MW, some people get upset. I think they would like it re-worded but are not sure exactly how.

I think that could be tough because so many people come here to bad mouth relatives and others in their lives.

That was not a contrived situation. I felt there was very strong evidence that the poster was not a legitimate MW member and, therefore, was fair game according to the rules as now written.

[Kaylara]

Which is why it says talking about other members. There is no rule saying that you have to be nice or agree with everyone else. You can even be downright rude. But we do see a difference between a personal attack and rudeness.

If a person has a few posts and a recent join date and all of those posts are obnoxious, pornographic, or attacking others, it's most likely a troll. Now this recent person was someone who was banned sneaking in (for about the 7th time.) and it was obvious. While we prefer that people just report them and don't feed the trolls, we also know that some people are entirely unable to restrain themselves when it comes to dealing with trolls. It's understandable. What the troll is doing is basically attacking the community as a whole, and some people just enjoy playing 'Whack a troll'. A troll has no respect for the community and as such we will not give them any respect either. (This is why we unceremoniously throw them out.) You may get moderated for your behavior in dealing with a troll too. You have to weigh whether or not it's worth it to you to behave like that. *shrugs*

[Cassie]

One thing I'd like to address.

Several threads have been closed and the Admin stated that the threads where closed due to the number of reports the thread recieved.

Now this gives the appearence that all you need to do, to close a thread you don't like, is get lots of reports on it.

.


I agree. I have seen threads closed just because two people were bickering. Closing the thread punishes everyone and that is not fair. Not to mention that those threads are usually the most interesting. I'm talking mainly about PP here. It's really very frustrating.


Threads are closed when it appears that people are unable to discuss a topic within the limitations of the current rules. It is one of the measures we can take to prevent people from continued violations. Other measures include moving posts and threads, censoring undesirable language, and finally, banning members....
.


True but it is also dispiriting to have to close a thread because two or three people are running amok in it. It is unfair to those who want to discuss the thread topic but get silenced because a couple of the minority that may run amok.

Is it technically possible to ban people from individual threads (at least for a cooling off period) rather than close the whole thread?

[Kaylara]

No, it's not possible to ban people from individual threads. We can ban them from particular forums though.

[Lunacie]

No, it's not possible to ban people from individual threads. We can ban them from particular forums though.

Wow, I didn't know that. Have you ever done that?

[Wolfpoet]

No, it's not possible to ban people from individual threads. We can ban them from particular forums though.

I'm thinking this may be a good use as a "1st strike". A cool off period from the forum in which they have been causing hassle. It could allow for threads to continue without the trouble makers.

[Cassie]

I'm thinking this may be a good use as a "1st strike". A cool off period from the forum in which they have been causing hassle. It could allow for threads to continue without the trouble makers.
I agree. I think that could be useful sometimes.

[SSanf]

Thank you for the confirmation that my assesment of the legitamacy of the poster was correct.

OK, now, I am really confused. The rule clearly states that we are only obligated to be respectful of MW members. So, I WAS within the rules as written, right?

Maybe, this needs rewording, after all.

Sorry, that I can't help you there. I will have to think about it. But, I will think about it some.

[Lunacie]

I believe that the way it works is that someone who is signed up as a member is considered to be a member - even if it's obvious that they're a troll - until they are booted or banned. I've seen a lot of really funny "bash the troll" threads over the years, but if you confront a troll you're taking a chance on getting an Admin Mode because of the respect rule.

[Twinkle]

The issue that I had was that a member came on the board and made an inciteful comment. We all can assume troll..but no one ever told us, we didn't know for sure.

An Admin posted and said that the poster had been taken care of, continue the discussion...and you, Ssanf had to put your two cents in, call the member and unspecified others ingrates after it was said to continue with the discussion!

You didn't help anything with your comment...only to piss off more people. Then you apologized for it, saying you had no control. The problem was, you already did it.

I call that baiting...but maybe it's just me.

And somehow this is OK....

That's what I don't get.

[WiccanGoddess]

I believe that the way it works is that someone who is signed up as a member is considered to be a member - even if it's obvious that they're a troll - until they are booted or banned. I've seen a lot of really funny "bash the troll" threads over the years, but if you confront a troll you're taking a chance on getting an Admin Mode because of the respect rule.

Way of writing: Thumbsupskie!

I feel that the respect rule falls for everyone, no matter how we percieve them. Until it is declared by an admin, I feel that is how this rule can be interpreted. As Lunacie stated. Until Mol or fellow admins appear with the answers, it's how I will interpet it.

[WiccanGoddess]

The issue that I had was that a member came on the board and made an inciteful comment. We all can assume troll..but no one ever told us, we didn't know for sure.

An Admin posted and said that the poster had been taken care of, continue the discussion...and you, Ssanf had to put your two cents in, call the member and unspecified others ingrates after it was said to continue with the discussion!

You didn't help anything with your comment...only to piss off more people. Then you apologized for it, saying you had no control. The problem was, you already did it.

I call that baiting...but maybe it's just me.

And somehow this is OK....

That's what I don't get.

I call it baiting, too...to say you had no control...well, my opinion...it's disrespectful, so I won't post. I don't see how an apology makes it oay, either, Twinkle.

[Lunacie]

The issue that I had was that a member came on the board and made an inciteful comment. We all can assume troll..but no one ever told us, we didn't know for sure.

An Admin posted and said that the poster had been taken care of, continue the discussion...and you, Ssanf had to put your two cents in, call the member and unspecified others ingrates after it was said to continue with the discussion!

You didn't help anything with your comment...only to piss off more people. Then you apologized for it, saying you had no control. The problem was, you already did it.

I call that baiting...but maybe it's just me.

And somehow this is OK....

That's what I don't get.

Sometimes people respond to a post without reading the rest of the new posts in that thread and therefore don't see an Admin Mode before posting. If it's a problem then Report it to the Admins and they can ask the poster to edit their post. I don't know if that's what happened in the situation with Ssanf that you're referring to, but I've seen it several times.

[Kaylara]

I believe that the way it works is that someone who is signed up as a member is considered to be a member - even if it's obvious that they're a troll - until they are booted or banned. I've seen a lot of really funny "bash the troll" threads over the years, but if you confront a troll you're taking a chance on getting an Admin Mode because of the respect rule.
Yep. Exactly. So, anything else need rewording or whatever?

[SSanf]

Who was I baiting? It was very clear that the troll had been booted. To bait someone they must be able to take the bait. That doesn't make sense to me. That was a rhetorical question and needs no particular response.

I will not discuss this further so that other parts of the rules may be dissected.

[WiccanGoddess]

Who was I baiting? It was very clear that the troll had been booted. To bait someone they must be able to take the bait. That doesn't make sense to me.

All those in disagreement with you?

That said...



Yep. Exactly. So, anything else need rewording or whatever?

I would just like to ask about the Grievance forum...when will it be set to go?

[Twinkle]

Who was I baiting? It was very clear that the troll had been booted. To bait someone they must be able to take the bait. That doesn't make sense to me. That was a rhetorical question and needs no particular response.

I will not discuss this further so that other parts of the rules may be dissected.


All the other unspecified people you called ingrates who disagree with you.

[Temptation]

I'm thinking this may be a good use as a "1st strike". A cool off period from the forum in which they have been causing hassle. It could allow for threads to continue without the trouble makers.



I agree. I think that could be useful sometimes.


I totally agree also. And I must say I am very suprised this hasn't been used before.

[Twinkle]

I totally agree also. And I must say I am very suprised this hasn't been used before.


I really like this idea as well. Sometimes people need a break....time to cool off before they really say something that will get them banned.

[WiccanGoddess]

I really like this idea as well. Sometimes people need a break....time to cool off before they really say something that will get them banned.

Don't they have 'cool down' bans? More like temporary suspensions...but the same thing...si?

[mol]

I would just like to ask about the Grievance forum...when will it be set to go?

When the rules go into *effect*. I want to send out a global email to the community and let those who want to review and give some feedback on these rules a turn to do so before we make them active.

[Cassie]

Don't they have 'cool down' bans? More like temporary suspensions...but the same thing...si?

Yes, but this would be specific to a particular forum.

[WiccanGoddess]

When the rules go into *effect*. I want to send out a global email to the community and let those who want to review and give some feedback on these rules a turn to do so before we make them active.


Okay, thanks for such a quick response!

[Lunacie]

Don't they have 'cool down' bans? More like temporary suspensions...but the same thing...si?

Like Wolfpoet said, it's a "first strike" and you'd only be banned from one forum. After another "strike" or two of them you'd be banned from the whole of MW for a cool down period. I like the idea. :thumbsup:

[Wolfpoet]

Yes, but this would be specific to a particular forum.

People act differently in different forums. Sometimes it's unfair for a blanket ban for something said in one forum.

I'll admit I've spent most of my time in PP lately, which is perhaps the hotbed for tensions. I've also posted in Just Pagan, paths and Gods and Goddesses, as well as the occaisonal foray into Philosophy and History.

I don't have the arguments in these others that you see in PP, which I think is the nature of political stuff. Sometimes if you go to far in one forum, a cool off is good and allows a member to re-discover other forums they have been neglecting. I for one have considred a sabbatical from PP and going back to writing essays on the Norse faith. Just keep getting dragged back into politics lol

Could never say no to obvious bait I guess.

[mol]

We are going to work out some 'Admin Guidelines' in the admin forum and post them up with the rules so we can discuss those as well. This will include how we will handle bans and perhaps we can get around not closing threads, etc. Stay tuned, folks. For now, lets pause that type of discussion and maybe focus on what we already have in the rules in the first post.

Thanks for the suggestions, folks. You guys rock!

[CzechWoods]

there are new rules ???????


what did i miss ??????????????????

[mol]

there are new rules ???????


what did i miss ??????????????????
Not a thing, my friend. They are in the first post. We are just discussing them now. =]

[Rick]

there are new rules ???????


what did i miss ??????????????????
pfffft! Czechie, you are the last person that needs to worry about being disrespectful to anyone else. :)

[mol]

pfffft! Czechie, you are the last person that needs to worry about being disrespectful to anyone else. :)
Haha! That's what I was thinking.

[eldora_avalon]

These are the rules as worked on by someone other than mol.


Just tell Mol I said he's pathetic. Totally without a shred of integrity or honor.

Which was pretty much what I was thinking. These weren't written by a bunch of people, they were written by one man that mol gave a promise to. Mol barely even fleshed them out and didn't even bother to fix all the grammatical errors. I wanted you guys to see word for word where most of your new rules came from. They came from a Discordian of the Subgenius variety. Someone who used to post here under another name.

http://www.erisbarandgrill.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=71735#71735

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:57 pm






It's an interesting idea, Mol, but I really have to ask...what's in it for me? I've been banned, the friggin' bobsy twins have played monkey**** with my account and my posts...

I really want to help you out, Mol, and I have a few ideas...but what's my motivation?

Well, you will be unbanned, of course. That much is certain.

Well, I appreciate that, but I knew I was gonna be banned when I made the post that got me exiled. I would do what I did all over again, if I am once more to be at the tender mercies of Kaylara and Xentor.

If you can promise that you'll at least put a leash on those two - by which I mean force them to restrain their hate - I will be more than happy to help you out, and to return to your board, which I enjoyed immensely until the recent unpleasantness.

Now, I'm off to have a smoke and bounce a few ideas around (concerning your 13 points), while I await your answer.

TGRR,
Keeping an open mind. In fact, the friggin' thing is like a wind tunnel.

http://www.erisbarandgrill.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=71844#71844

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:41 am(eastern time)


1. Please keep the language G-rated, as may minors post here. "Crap" works when you want to say "shit", for example. Same goes for image files...a funny pic is fine, but pr0n is unacceptable. If it can't go on the teevee, it can't go here.

2. Debate the idea, don't attack the poster. Calling someone "neocon filth"/"Liberal traitor"/"Fluffy bunny" is not a refutation of an idea, it's an ad hominem attack.

3. Racism, sexism, the outright bashing of a path or religion, etc is unacceptable. Debating the tenets of a religion is one thing...calling all Christians evil is quite another.

4. No spam, advertisements, or anything of that nature is permitted, unless you pay the sacred ad fees to Mol. Freeload off of someone else.

5. The ignore function is your friend. Keep the flames to PMs, and/or put people who annoy you on ignore.

6. Posting of PMs, red karma, or emails is forbidden without the consent of the other party(s) involved.

More on the way.

http://www.erisbarandgrill.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=71887#71887

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:04 am(eastern time)


7. Joking around is okay, but you are at the mercy of the person you are joking with. Calling your friend a "tard" is fine, provided he/she isn't offended. Please try to work out any differences of opinion on this matter via PM before reporting. YOUR next joke may inadvertently offend others; so keep that in mind before reporting someone before discussing it with them.

8. The report function is not there to be used when you lose an argument. It is there to report actions which are violations of the rules.

9. Political Pagan is - by nature - a very turbulent place. Things are said there that would be unacceptable anywhere else...but this does not imply that you can get away with murder. The rules are relaxed there, not non-existant. And remember...what happens in Political Pagan STAYS in Political Pagan.

10. Evangelizing is legal. Sorry. If done politely, it is a perfectly valid form of expression on a board that is - however unconventionally - religious in nature. However, haranguing people with, foe example, threats of hellfire is NOT okay. Neither is calling someone's religion "false", no matter how wrong or silly it may seem to you.

11. Arguments are NOT to be carried from one thread or forum to another. Neither will things said on other forums be used as cause for discipline here...but by the same token, arguments from off-site STAY off-site.

12. A general guideline is this: Post nothing that you wouldn't want to have posted toward yourself. Bear in mind that your having a thick skin doesn't mean you can violate the above rules.

13. Nobody is above the rules, whether they be a mod, an admin, etc.

Special bonus rule 14. There is no secret "Pogs" forum...so stop bugging Mol about it. Seriously.

[mol]

These are the rules as worked on by someone other than mol.

I already told everyone this:

http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?p=2841607#post2841607

[SSanf]

Good grief!

How dare you use their one or two donated sentences and develop them into full-blown paragraphs and, then, give them attribution in this thread.

Dang, I guess, they sure caught you that time, MOL.

I guess, the complaint is that they didn't get paid enough in restraining the mods which appears to be the coinage for forum rule writing.

Just rephrase a few things so you owe them NOTHING unless they have already been paid off.

[mol]

Good grief!

How dare you use their one or two freely donated sentences and develop them into full-blown paragraphs and, then, give them attribution in this thread.

Dang, I guess, they sure caught you that time, MOL.

I guess, the complaint is that they didn't get paid enough in restraining the mods which appears to be the coinage for forum rule writing.
=]

No, no, no! This thread is for discussion of the rules and guidelines that were posted in the first post. I don't want this turning into the next conspiracy theory or 'MW sucks because I broke rules and got banned' thread. No discussing of bans...no discussing of anything except the rules outlined in the first post. Discuss and suggest.

For the record, AGAIN, a LOT of people worked on these rules and none of them ever asked for credit nor did *I* take credit. And now that the community is discussing and suggesting improvements then *YOU ALL* are a part of it, too.

[Lunacie]

These are the rules as worked on by someone other than mol.



Which was pretty much what I was thinking. These weren't written by a bunch of people, they were written by one man that mol gave a promise to. Mol barely even fleshed them out and didn't even bother to fix all the grammatical errors. I wanted you guys to see word for word where most of your new rules came from. They came from a Discordian of the Subgenius variety. Someone who used to post here under another name.



It's been explained that Mol talked to the very people who are most likely to try and find the loopholes and exploit them, and see what rules they thought would work. That was never a secret.

Or a conspiracy.

[eldora_avalon]

Good grief!

How dare you use their one or two freely donated sentences and develop them into full-blown paragraphs and, then, give them attribution in this thread.

Dang, I guess, they sure caught you that time, MOL.

Actually it was 11 or so paragraphs, not one or two sentences. There were other things involved that seemed to go screwy later. These paragrahs were not freely given, there was a discussion going on at the time.

I think it's odd that mol would use rules word for word from someone he banned, maybe it's just me. Near as I can tell, it wasn't a bunch of people like mol claimed, it was one person.

[WiccanGoddess]

Nonetheless, Mol credited the source. What more does the creator(s) want?

[GEBS]

I can tell you that it was not word for word from one person. There were four revisions based on my input alone. And then there was input from others too that I saw.

[mol]

I think it's odd that mol would use rules word for word from someone he banned, maybe it's just me. Near as I can tell, it wasn't a bunch of people like mol claimed, it was one person.

Well, all I can say is...you are wrong.

And with that...we need to get this discussion back on track. I am not going to let this thread turn into a war about who did what and when.

[eldora_avalon]

I can tell you that it was not word for word from one person. There were four revisions based on my input alone. And then there was input from others too that I saw.

Yep, there were additions and deletions, but large portions are word for word what Roger wrote, that is why I decided to post exactly what he did write and when, so there would be less confusion. To me it looks like it is mostly Roger's stuff, I am sure to other's it looks like little of Roger's stuff is left. As has already been posted in this thread.

[Lunacie]

8. The report function is not there to be used when you lose an argument. It is there to report actions which are violations of the rules. If the admins do not see the post as a violation of these rules then there will be no moderation and we will notify the reporter of this and why no admin action was taken.


I was glad to see this rule, not because I've had a problem but because I've seen several complaints that reports were never acted on.


12. Public discussion of moderations, admin modes, and 'mol' modes is not allowed anywhere on the site except in the grievance forum. ...
This goes for anything...don't even quote a moderation and say 'Thank You.' Use a karma poke instead, as some members might see that as a slap in the face. It's not worth it! No public discussion of bannings is allowed and we will NOT discuss the banning of one member with another, so don't ask!

Also for making it clear that NO response should be made to an Admin Mode post, neither negative nor positive. I'm sure that would have occurred to me eventually... ;)


One last thing... IF I should ever find myself perma-banned, how do I find your email addy, Mol?

[mol]

Yep, there were additions and deletions, but large portions are word for word what Roger wrote, that is why I decided to post exactly what he did write and when, so there would be less confusion. To me it looks like it is mostly Roger's stuff, I am sure to other's it looks like little of Roger's stuff is left. As has already been posted in this thread.
So, he has his credit now.

I would ask that you stop ignoring the fact that I have said several times this thread is about discussing the actual rules and guidelines. If I had known I needed to list every persons name that helped create the rules I would have done so...I figured a more broad explanation that they came from various sources was enough.

Now this is enough. It has been explained.

[mol]

One last thing... IF I should ever find myself perma-banned, how do I find your email addy, Mol?


If you use the 'Contact Us' link at the bottom of the page it goes to me. I will add that to the guidelines. =]

Edited to add: Actually, it's already there...where it says click HERE. I believe, even if you are banned, it will allow you to use the contact page. I will test it and make sure.

[Lunacie]

If you use the 'Contact Us' link at the bottom of the page it goes to me. I will add that to the guidelines. =]

But... if I'm banned I can't log in here to use that 'Contact Us' link?

[mol]

But... if I'm banned I can't log in here to use that 'Contact Us' link?
Even guests can use the contact link. =]

[Lunacie]

When I was temp-banned I couldn't log in even to lurk and read. Was that a glitch? I just assumed that if you were banned you were completely locked out?

[Twinkle]

Even guests can use the contact link. =]


So, if a banning occurs there is still discussion available through e-mail. Or is discussion on a case by case basis?

In other words, is it entirely possible that e-mails will be ignored by Admin because this person has violated the rules so badly that there is no negotiation available?

I wouldn't want anyone to think that they can do anything and still have a chance to negotiate later...unless they can.

[mol]

So, if a banning occurs there is still discussion available through e-mail. Or is discussion on a case by case basis?

In other words, is it entirely possible that e-mails will be ignored by Admin because this person has violated the rules so badly that there is no negotiation available?

I wouldn't want anyone to think that they can do anything and still have a chance to negotiate later...unless they can.
Twinkle, anyone can contact me anytime to discuss. And, Lunacie, you don't have to log in to use the contact form. Don't log in...if you ever find yourself banned...just log out or dont log in and use the 'Contact us' link at the bottom of the page.

[Hellenic_Witch]

It's been explained that Mol talked to the very people who are most likely to try and find the loopholes and exploit them, and see what rules they thought would work. That was never a secret.



In fact, I think that was very, very smart.

All communities evolve. This is no different.

[Twinkle]

In fact, I think that was very, very smart.

All communities evolve. This is no different.


Yep...it was smart....and people helped on good faith.

[SwordsFlameSong]

**ADMIN MODE**

Carrying messages from a banned user is not in keeping with the rules.


Just tell Mol I said he's pathetic. Totally without a shred of integrity or honor.


If a banned user has an issue with their banning or a member of this site they can share this information with us via the "Contact Us" option at the lower right hand corner of the page of email Mol.

Secondly, what happens at another site stays at another site. It wasn't that long ago that we received complaints regarding members of this community lurking at the site being linked in this post to cause problems for some members of MW. It wasn't tolerated then. It will not be tolerated now.

In the future, if you should have more concerns of this nature take them up in pm with an admin or Mol. Whether a person agrees with the rules or how they came about is a moot point. This thread is for discussion not flaming, baiting, name calling etc. The rule of RESPECT is in force regardless of the request for discussion.

Any further discussions or concerns regarding this should be taken to pm.




These are the rules as worked on by someone other than mol.



Which was pretty much what I was thinking. These weren't written by a bunch of people, they were written by one man that mol gave a promise to. Mol barely even fleshed them out and didn't even bother to fix all the grammatical errors. I wanted you guys to see word for word where most of your new rules came from. They came from a Discordian of the Subgenius variety. Someone who used to post here under another name.

http://www.erisbarandgrill.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=71735#71735

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:57 pm



http://www.erisbarandgrill.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=71844#71844

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:41 am(eastern time)



http://www.erisbarandgrill.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=71887#71887

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:04 am(eastern time)

[Xentor]

Admin mode

Let me make this clear, so everyone will understand:

The intention of this thread is to discuss the proposed rules in the 1st post, in order to make them the rules of this community.

Anyone not discussing that topic in this thread will be removed. Anyone creating new threads in order to create drama about these proposals will be removed.

This is an admin mode. Anyone addressing this post in public, will be removed as well.

[Carla O'Harris]

The Rules of Respect and MW Guidelines

1. Keep the language PG-rated, as many minors post here. "Crap" works when you want to say "shit", for example. Same goes for image files...a funny pic is fine, but porn is unacceptable. Do not post any obscene, vulgar, or sexually-explicit material here. If it can't go on public TV, it can't go here. Do not try to use NYPD Blue or Nip/Tuck as a way to argue about this rule. We have a word filter in place that has been in place for years. Do not try going around the word filter to display words that we are filtering out...and we mean that literally. Do NOT go around the word filter to display the ACTUAL WORDS we are filtering out. The filter replaces these so-called 'bad words' with other words and the words we use to replace them with change often purely for my amusement (mol).

2. Debate the idea, don't attack the poster. Calling someone "neocon filth"/"Liberal traitor"/"Fluffy bunny"/"idiot"/"dumbass"/"moron"/"crackpot"/"conservative arsehole"/"big loser", actually, any name-calling whatsoever is not a refutation of an idea, it's a verbal (yah, yah...typed, written, etc) attack of another member of this community and it will not be tolerated. Notice that we are talking about verbal attacks between members. You are free to call, for example, George Bush...a big loser, until the time comes when Mr. Bush joins the community. Then he must be respected like every other member. Also, no condescending stuff. Calling someone sweetypie, honeybunch, hun, missy, might just be the way you talk, but it can also imply a condescending tone. We have no way of knowing which way you are using the term...so if you are addressing someone directly, just use their username.

3. Racism, sexism, age discrimination, the outright bashing of a path or religion, etc is unacceptable. Debating the tenets of a religion is one thing...calling all Christians evil or saying that all Pagans are going to hell is not allowed. Proselytizing is not allowed in any form. No conversion or 'witnessing' is allowed. We are not here to spread our various religions. We are here to be friends, love and respect each other, and most importantly...learn. Tolerance is key. All religions and Paths are welcome here providing their tenets do not violate any laws or our rules. Calling someones religion "false", no matter how wrong or silly it may seem to you is not allowed.

4. No spam, advertisements, or anything of that nature is permitted via posts/PM's/or emails, unless you pay advertising fees to mysticwicks. Freeload off of someone else. Spammers are banned instantly and you won't be notified.

5. The ignore function should be used. Keep the flames to PMs, and/or put people who annoy you on ignore. Seriously. Use the ignore feature. If someone is sending you PM's that you do not like then place them on ignore and they can't send you PM's anymore. It's very simple. If someone is harassing/stalking you then PM or email an admin immediately.

6. Public posting/forwarding of PMs, karma pokes, or emails (through the site) is forbidden without the consent of the other party(s) involved unless you are sending this information to an admin to prove harassment, etc. This is private information and should be kept private.

7. Joking around is okay, but you are at the mercy of the person you are joking with. Calling your friend a "tard" is fine, provided he/she isn't offended. Please try to work out any differences of opinion on this matter via PM before reporting. YOUR next joke may inadvertently offend others; so keep that in mind before reporting someone before discussing it with them.

8. The report function is not there to be used when you lose an argument. It is there to report actions which are violations of the rules. If the admins do not see the post as a violation of these rules then there will be no moderation and we will notify the reporter of this and why no admin action was taken.

9. Political Pagan is - by nature - a very turbulent place. Things are said there that would be unacceptable anywhere else...but this does not imply that you can get away with murder. The rules are relaxed there, not non-existent. And remember...what happens in Political Pagan STAYS in Political Pagan. See rule #2.

10. All goodbye threads will be closed because all they do is cause drama in the long run, unless they are legitimate 'goodbyes' like, for example, you are moving, losing your internet connection, or something of that nature. If you want to leave MW that is your choice, PM your friends and let them know, but don't make a public spectacle of it.

11. Arguments are NOT to be carried from one thread or forum to another. Neither will things said on other forums be used as cause for discipline here...but by the same token, arguments from off-site STAY off-site. Private, real life problems between members needs to be settled in private and off of the public boards.

12. Public discussion of moderations, admin modes, and 'mol' modes is not allowed anywhere on the site except in the grievance forum. Please read the guidelines for the grievance forum below. If you violate the rules outlined here then you will be moderated. It serves several purposes, of which the most important is getting threads back on track and showing real examples of these rules in action. This goes for anything...don't even quote a moderation and say 'Thank You.' Use a karma poke instead, as some members might see that as a slap in the face. It's not worth it! No public discussion of bannings is allowed and we will NOT discuss the banning of one member with another, so don't ask!

13. Nobody is above the rules, whether they be a mod, an admin, etc.



Grievance Forum Guidelines

If an admin moderates your post you have the option of discussing the moderation in the Grievance Forum. By starting a thread in this forum you are requesting the moderation to be reviewed by the admins. Only the person moderated can start threads to discuss the moderation. No one can start it on behalf of another poster. No admin will start a thread to discuss a moderation. The discussion of the moderation will include any or all of the admins that choose to participate in the discussion. Only the original poster and admins can participate in the discussion. If there is no progress towards a resolution the thread will be closed. It is for discussions and clarification, not arguments. If there is no explanation of how the moderated post does not break the rules then there is no need for the thread.

Posting in the Grievance Forum is optional. The option to PM an admin about the moderation is still available and encouraged if the member feels the moderation is unjust but does not feel comfortable with publicly viewable discussion.

No discussion of the topics in the grievance forum should happen anywhere else on the site. (See Rule #12)

This forum is for public viewing of constructive conversation regarding moderations and not a license to publicly harass, bash or criticize the administration or other members. Threads are only to be started for legitimate disagreements with a specific moderation. Threads started without refutation of a moderation will be closed. Threads for general concerns are not allowed. Please use the Site Room for discussion of that sort.

Abuse of these rules in the Grievance Forum will lead to the poster being banned.



Now for the fine print, only...it's not so fine...it's the same size as all the rest:

All messages express the views of the author (meaning the post's author), and not the administrators of Mystic Wicks nor will the administrators or Mystic Wicks be held responsible for the content of any message.

If you feel a message is in violation of our rules and/or policies then PLEASE REPORT THE POST using the report link located in the menu underneath each post. This goes for posts made by administrators as well (after all, the admins are members of this community, too). Even if you feel someone may have already reported it...report it anyway. It's not tattling. With that said, members don't need to be politically correct all the time. Posted material may offend you. If so, step back and wonder whether it was meant to hurt you specifically. Then you may want to report it. Otherwise, learn from it or toss it aside.

The administrators of Mystic Wicks Online Pagan Community and Spiritual Sanctuary have the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread/post/signature/avatar/profile pic/etc for any reason. PERIOD! Why? Because I am sure some troll will come along eventually and find a way to skirt around the rules outlines above. It always happens. One thing that has made MW the great place that it is, is the absolute intolerance for trolls and trolling in any form.

All posts are the property of the individuals who contributed them unless otherwise specified or deemed inappropriate by the rules and guidelines. User-specific data is property of Mystic Wicks. Please do not copy any information without first contacting the site admins and/or the respective author of the previously mentioned information.

In the case of a moved thread the thread originator is notified with a link to its new location. If your thread is moved to a different forum than you originally posted it in and you feel it was not moved properly, then report the first post in the thread with a message stating WHY you feel it was wrong to move the thread and specify the forum you would like it moved back into. If, after reviewing the thread, the admins feel it should be moved back then it will be moved back. If this happens with your own thread, contact the admin or mod who moved it.

User names and accounts are never deleted (unless a user account has been dormant for more than one year and has 0 posts) so please don't ask us to do so. This would totally disrupt the flow of threads. Members cannot have more than one user name. If we (admins) find out that a member is posting under two usernames we will merge those usernames after contacting the member in question and verifying that this is, indeed, the case. If you forget your log-in, contact an admin. If you want to change your user name, contact an admin. If you have registered twice and posted under several different accounts and want them merged then please contact an administrator.

We take copyrights very seriously here. To view our 'Fair Use' policy....click here (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=12340).

If you have been banned and would like to come back to the forum then please note our 'appeals' process. First, no one that has been banned will be considered for reinstatement until 3 months after their ban (some exceptions can be made depending on the nature of the ban...read on.) Please contact me (mol) if you would like your forum privileges re-instated. We don't like banning ANYONE, so we always have open eyes and ears if someone really wants to be here. So, again, email me (mol) if you would like to be re-instated. An email discussion will begin and that is the first step. Click HERE (http://www.mysticwicks.com/sendmessage.php) to email me. The rest is between you and I. After some discussion I will present this discussion to the rest of the admins for feedback. This is not a guarantee of reinstatement...but it is a start.

A word about Privacy: All information given in the sign-up form will remain private to the Mystic Wicks Community. No information will ever be given out or sold.

These rules are subject to change at any time. However, if the rules are changed the community will be notified via a new thread outlining the change and through a community-wide email.




Discuss! Constructive suggestions are encouraged. No arguing!



All of these rules seem reasonable, except for the rule about so-called "obscene" images. Paganism includes paths that are more open about nudity and sexuality, and I can't for the life of me understand why we would be dumbing down community standards to a fundamentalist moralistic place. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the use of the term "obscene", but for example, I have posted pictures of a Japanese fertility festival that includes topless women carrying around giant phalluses. This is an extremely important pagan image, and very relevant to discussions of the cults of Liber and Freyr, for example. Posting such pictures seems important to me. The Japanese consider such behavior to be fine for children to attend and watch, so it doesn't seem as if there's anything inherently obscene in that. (On the other hand, that's not posting porn either.) I'm just wondering where the line is drawn.

[Xentor]

All of these rules seem reasonable, except for the rule about so-called "obscene" images. Paganism includes paths that are more open about nudity and sexuality, and I can't for the life of me understand why we would be dumbing down community standards to a fundamentalist moralistic place. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the use of the term "obscene", but for example, I have posted pictures of a Japanese fertility festival that includes topless women carrying around giant phalluses. This is an extremely important pagan image, and very relevant to discussions of the cults of Liber and Freyr, for example. Posting such pictures seems important to me. The Japanese consider such behavior to be fine for children to attend and watch, so it doesn't seem as if there's anything inherently obscene in that. (On the other hand, that's not posting porn either.) I'm just wondering where the line is drawn.
Interesting point indeed.

[Agaliha]

All of these rules seem reasonable, except for the rule about so-called "obscene" images. Paganism includes paths that are more open about nudity and sexuality, and I can't for the life of me understand why we would be dumbing down community standards to a fundamentalist moralistic place. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the use of the term "obscene", but for example, I have posted pictures of a Japanese fertility festival that includes topless women carrying around giant phalluses. This is an extremely important pagan image, and very relevant to discussions of the cults of Liber and Freyr, for example. Posting such pictures seems important to me. The Japanese consider such behavior to be fine for children to attend and watch, so it doesn't seem as if there's anything inherently obscene in that. (On the other hand, that's not posting porn either.) I'm just wondering where the line is drawn.

I looked up the defintion of Obscene, from dictionary.com

Main Entry: ob·scene
Pronunciation: äb-'sEn
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin obscenus obscaenus indecent, lewd
: extremely or deeply offensive according to contemporary community standards of morality or decency —see also Roth v. United States in the IMPORTANT CASES (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=mwlaw&q=importantcases) section
NOTE: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that obscene applies to materials that appeal predominantly to a prurient interest in sexual conduct, depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Material or expression deemed obscene by the court is not protected by the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Porn would be obscene.
An image of a fertility festival that pertains to a religion, culture and is a valid discussion...wouldn't to be obscene. At least from my view and understanding of the word.

[Xentor]

Ah, the U.S. Supreme Court provided an answer. Maybe we can incorporate it (quoting?).

For any material that might still be questionable, ask an admin.

[Wolfpoet]

Also bear in mind this site is multi-national. Something that to a Brit or American that wouls seem to have crossed the line could appear perfectly acceptable to a Czech or a German.

[Kaylara]

Well, we try to take into consideration cultural mores as well. A lot of things that don't bother me in the least seem to bother some members a lot. We do give leeway for art and things like that, but really if you want to post something that is sexually explicit, it should not be posted on MWlite.

[Wolfpoet]

It also depends on context.

I've seen the pictures Carla noted regarding the Japanese festival. It's an annual thing, hell they make penis-shaped lollypops for kids! In the context of some of the more conservatice American posters here, that could be considered child abuse.

On another forum I honestly did read a post where a person said it was a form of child abuse!

Now when you look at some of the fertility dolls and icons of pagan cultures through the years they can be very... revealing.

ow my take on all this, taking the above into account, if you are making a legitimate post on a certain subject and the pictures are added to emphasize that point, then fair enough.

However I do think that in the more contreversial cases, perhaps it would be better not to post the picture itself but post a link and a disclaimer. We don't want anybody getting fired from work now do we?

[Kaylara]

I would agree. But if it's added for emphasis or is artistic or relevant to the topic, I wouldn't warn you for posting it. If I think it's too explicit, I might pm you and ask you to either remove it, or do what you said. :)

[LostSheep]

Or should I send out an email to the community to alert everyone that we are discussing this? Thoughts?
That might be an idea ... i only just noticed this.

It seems fair enough to me, and I'm glad it is being opened up for discussion.

[ap Dafydd]

Frankly speaking, all of the proposed rules sound sensible enough. We're a big community and the kind of ad hocness that works on a smaller list doesn't always work here, especially when folk come along to argue the toss about what's acceptable and what's not.

My own view is that getting the input of the Discordians (bless 'em) about what's acceptable is totally positive.

I hope that cultural differences, especially with regard to "language", will be tolerated as the discussions the last time that a set of rules and a structure for moderation was proposed flagged up a number of surprising ones.

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

[Temptation]

All of these rules seem reasonable, except for the rule about so-called "obscene" images. Peopleism includes paths that are more open about nudity and sexuality, and I can't for the life of me understand why we would be dumbing down community standards to a fundamentalist moralistic place. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the use of the term "obscene", but for example, I have posted pictures of a Japanese fertility festival that includes topless women carrying around giant phalluses. This is an extremely important People image, and very relevant to discussions of the cults of Liber and Freyr, for example. Posting such pictures seems important to me. The Japanese consider such behavior to be fine for children to attend and watch, so it doesn't seem as if there's anything inherently obscene in that. (On the other hand, that's not posting porn either.) I'm just wondering where the line is drawn.

Not to mention that this is an international community. There are many members here and not all are American. What might be conisdered "obscene" by American standards and is censored on American television will very often not be the case for Europeans. I'm thinking more of the "Janet Jackson exposed nipple thing" or female partial nudity in general. We get that on national TV all the time here and it is not considered obscene.

So does this mean we all have to go by the American definition of the word? Because let me tell you, obscene in Europe means something completely different. ;)

Edited to add: And it goes both ways, some members from some other parts of the world might also view the little that is acceptable in the US as not acceptable at all by their own local cultural standards.

Tricky, huh?

[Temptation]

Also bear in mind this site is multi-national. Something that to a Brit or American that wouls seem to have crossed the line could appear perfectly acceptable to a Czech or a German.

lol

I should have seen that you already adressed the issue. Sorry about repeating your point, WP.

[LostSheep]

i think it does seem to allow a bit of leeway and flexibility, which was the problem with the last attempt because it tried so hard to spell everything out that it ended up seeming so draconian that there was the feeling anything we might do might count as an infringement of some rule or other.

[Kaylara]

Well, one of the Admins is European, and another is living in Europe. ;) So as far as trying to uphold "american" standards of "decency" nah. Use your brain and think before posting something whether or not you would find it offensive. Then again, there are plenty of things that people post that I have no problem with but that other members seem to think is obscene.

[pluralone]

Regarding the 'decency debate': As with the rules regarding insults and such, much of this issue revolves around intent, does it not?

I think it was well said that if one is offended by a post (which could well include an image) one might simply step back and consider if offense was intended. I would do well to heed that advice myself; it would truly save me a lot of hurt feelings, oversensitive soul that I am.

Regarding the Rules and Guidelines in general: I'd encourage the adoption of these as they have been written, no changes. Although certain valid concerns were raised, I think it would be wise to give these Rules and Guidelines a chance to be proven in action. It's always an option to adjust them later if needed.

[Bethra]

Mystic Wicks is not a democracy.

Okayyyy so what type of community is it then?

I only ask so that I can work out if I want to remain part of it. Since currently I live in a real life democracy I kinda hoped my vertual community would be of the same ideals.

So what is this community? Totalitarian? Comunist? Dictatorship? Monachist? Obviously not Anarchist or Universalist so what kind of place is this really? The fact that you can out right tell us that MW is NOT a democracy implies that you are able to define what MW is. I've been here a while now and I for one have NO idea what MW is because no one is willing to tell us what kind of community we are living our vertual lives in.

So yes I'd like some clarity on this point please :D

[Lunacie]

Living in a democracy, or a republic for that matter, doesn't mean there aren't rules in place that everyone must follow. It may not be possible, or reasonable, to place that kind of label on a discussion forum. But I've got a headache and am probably not thinking real clearly today.

[Bethra]

Living in a democracy, or a republic for that matter, doesn't mean there aren't rules in place that everyone must follow. It may not be possible, or reasonable, to place that kind of label on a discussion forum. But I've got a headache and am probably not thinking real clearly today.

I wasn't debating the rules actualy I was simply asking for some form of clarity as to what type of community tis actualy IS. I never mensioned rules.

Question remains if MW is definatly NOT a democracy there has to be an understanding of what it is. I would therefore like some clarity of exactly what kind of forum this is, since it apears to be something other than what I expected when I originaly joined up here. So if we know what it is not then we must have an idea of what it is in order to find out if it is acceptable to us.

[WiccanGoddess]

I've got a question regarding signatures. If someone has something credited to you, but they have creditted you incorrectly (out of spite and mocking), what can be done about said person?

[Sequoia]

I've got a question regarding signatures. If someone has something credited to you, but they have creditted you incorrectly (out of spite and mocking), what can be done about said person?

You mean, what can be done when someone accurately posts what you said, and you suddenly feel embarrassed?

I already offered to take your name off, WG, or link the thread you said it in. I posted it in my siggy because it genuinely made me laugh, and I thought it might be humerous to others as well.

If you're that durned embarrassed, go edit your original post and keep this in PMs between us.

Dragging PMs into public is against the rules. Especially when an Admin is already involved.

Sheesh!

[WiccanGoddess]

I wrote this long before I PMed you, Sequoia.

[WiccanGoddess]

I've got a question regarding signatures. If someone has something credited to you, but they have creditted you incorrectly (out of spite and mocking), what can be done about said person?


Let me requestion this: Use of one's words without one's permission. Is that allowed?

[WiccanGoddess]

You mean, what can be done when someone accurately posts what you said, and you suddenly feel embarrassed?

I already offered to take your name off, WG, or link the thread you said it in. I posted it in my siggy because it genuinely made me laugh, and I thought it might be humerous to others as well.

If you're that durned embarrassed, go edit your original post and keep this in PMs between us.

Dragging PMs into public is against the rules. Especially when an Admin is already involved.

Sheesh!

Read my above post. This was queried long before an admin became involved. Check the timestamps of the PMs. The PM came after I posted the query. It's not that I'm embarassed about it, it's that I didn't give you my permission to use my words, no matter how they are placed, strategically or not. They're my words. I don't edit my posts, I am ashamed of nothing. What I am pertrubed by is arrogance.

[Sequoia]

Read my above post. This was queried long before an admin became involved. Check the timestamps of the PMs. The PM came after I posted the query. It's not that I'm embarassed about it, it's that I didn't give you my permission to use my words, no matter how they are placed, strategically or not. They're my words. I don't edit my posts, I am ashamed of nothing. What I am pertrubed by is arrogance.

:eyebrow:

If you have a problem with it, keep it to the original admin involved. There's no reason to drag it out into a thread that wasn't even related.

If you are not ashamed, and don't edit your posts, then why are you so upset? They are simply what you said. Something that others have expressed in more elaborate ways, but that you managed to sum up so nicely. I liked it. I simply moved it from the post it was in, to my signature.

I already offered to remove your name. *shrug*

[SSanf]

I wasn't debating the rules actualy I was simply asking for some form of clarity as to what type of community tis actualy IS. I never mensioned rules.

Question remains if MW is definatly NOT a democracy there has to be an understanding of what it is. I would therefore like some clarity of exactly what kind of forum this is, since it apears to be something other than what I expected when I originaly joined up here. So if we know what it is not then we must have an idea of what it is in order to find out if it is acceptable to us.MW is a privately owned enterprise and is subject to such rules and conditions as the owner deems to impose and are in accordance with the law.

[Athena-Nadine]

Let me requestion this: Use of one's words without one's permission. Is that allowed?
It is allowed if the words have been posted publicly, because everyone has access to them already. It is not allowed if the words have been sent in a PM or karma poke, as those are private.

If you have an issue with it, take it up with an admin, either by reporting a post with the signature you find so offensive, or through PM.

Since you are already discussing the issue and an admin is already involved, it was inappropriate to bring it here.

[WiccanGoddess]

It is allowed if the words have been posted publicly, because everyone has access to them already. It is not allowed if the words have been sent in a PM or karma poke, as those are private.

That's all I was looking for. An answer. Thank you.

[WiccanGoddess]

:eyebrow:

If you have a problem with it, keep it to the original admin involved. There's no reason to drag it out into a thread that wasn't even related.

I didn't know an admin was involved until after I posted my question.



If you are not ashamed, and don't edit your posts, then why are you so upset? They are simply what you said. Something that others have expressed in more elaborate ways, but that you managed to sum up so nicely. I liked it. I simply moved it from the post it was in, to my signature.

Why am I upset? Because you're using mocking terms. You put after me in every thread I seem to post in. You could have at least had the dignity to ask if it was all right to use my words. I see A-N has replied to my question, and I was wrong, but I, personally, would still ask.



I already offered to remove your name. *shrug*

Fine. Please do remove it so we can end this.

[Xentor]

Quoting myself:


Admin mode

Let me make this clear, so everyone will understand:

The intention of this thread is to discuss the proposed rules in the 1st post, in order to make them the rules of this community.

Anyone not discussing that topic in this thread will be removed. Anyone creating new threads in order to create drama about these proposals will be removed.

It appears Bethra does not understand a clear warning:


I wasn't debating the rules actualy I was simply asking for some form of clarity as to what type of community tis actualy IS. I never mensioned rules.

Of course it is possible that Bethra didn't see my Admin mode before replying to my post. As such, this violation of my directive shall be ignored. Once.

Sequoia: stop bickering about someone else's questions. If you have a problem with someone, take it elsewhere. See my quote above.

Stick to the topic, please.

[Bethra]

It appears Bethra does not understand a clear warning:

Of course it is possible that Bethra didn't see my Admin mode before replying to my post. As such, this violation of my directive shall be ignored. Once.

No I didn't read it, I've been away a while with real life stuff to deal with and didn't feel like trawling the whole thread to read lots of pointless babble. I picked out your quote about MW not being a democracy because it raised a question I wished to ask. I shall not bother making a new thread to get and answer to my question since obviously it will be viewed as creating drama. This was not my intent, I did state quite catagoricaly why I asked the question, it had nothing inflamitory involved but a simple answer wouldn't have gone a miss instead of biting at me for bothering to care. If I didn't care I wouldn't be asking questions, so lets play nice and don't be so defensive, I wasn't asking to cause offence only for a little clarity.

The rules are ok so long as I can understand the nature of this community, without a full definition of that nature I can't be expected to form a grounded judgment on if they are the right sort of rules or if this is the right sort of place for me. It's simply a matter of having all the imformation so that I can make a banaced and informed judgment on this place so to me it is about the topic in hand.

So I will ask again for a more clear definition of what MW is so that I can then work out what I think of the rules. Once I have all the information I require I will then post coment on the rules. Untill I have that it would be incorrect of me to cast my judgment.

[Zibblsnrt]

So I will ask again for a more clear definition of what MW is so that I can then work out what I think of the rules. Once I have all the information I require I will then post coment on the rules. Untill I have that it would be incorrect of me to cast my judgment.

The default status of any (non-governmental) online forum, mailing list, personal blog, etc., is that they are autocracies, not democracies. The administrator is the font of law and power, the final court of appeal, the guy with the on/off switch. You'll be hard pressed to find any significant sites out there which work in any other way.

That is to say, the users, the content, indeed the site itself, exists on the sole suffrance of the individual or individuals who own the domain, the software, the servers. The two blogs I maintain? They are not and will not be democracies; I own 'em, my rules, whether reasoned or arbitrary, are the laws of the land. Some random Yahoo group? It's the same thing, the owner may as well be God. The Yahoo groups network as a whole? The same thing, only Yahoo itself owns them.

MW? The same thing, only it's Mol's property. The rules are those he, as the owner of this place, decree to be such; they change if he wishes them to change, or if the userbase convinces him (as they cannot force him, having neither legal nor physical ability to) to alter them. The latter is what he is implicitly requesting by putting this thread up - "here's my first draft at the rules, lemme know what you think and then I'll go from there."

You will find very, very, very few privately-operated sites that, when it comes down to it, operate on any principle other than that. Large, high-traffic forums like this one? You'll be hard pressed to find any which don't, in the end, operate on what's more or less an autocratic principle.

Am I slamming the idea? Absolutely not. It's both the way things are, and the way things should be for sites like this. After all, only one (to my knowledge) user on this site actually legally owns the whole thing.

I can comment and criticise and even (to a point!) challenge, but I have no more right to tell a site owner how their site's run than a guest in my house has to tell me how I run it.

[Bethra]

The default status of any (non-governmental) online forum, mailing list, personal blog, etc., is that they are autocracies, not democracies. The administrator is the font of law and power, the final court of appeal, the guy with the on/off switch. You'll be hard pressed to find any significant sites out there which work in any other way.

That is to say, the users, the content, indeed the site itself, exists on the sole suffrance of the individual or individuals who own the domain, the software, the servers. The two blogs I maintain? They are not and will not be democracies; I own 'em, my rules, whether reasoned or arbitrary, are the laws of the land. Some random Yahoo group? It's the same thing, the owner may as well be God. The Yahoo groups network as a whole? The same thing, only Yahoo itself owns them.

MW? The same thing, only it's Mol's property. The rules are those he, as the owner of this place, decree to be such; they change if he wishes them to change, or if the userbase convinces him (as they cannot force him, having neither legal nor physical ability to) to alter them. The latter is what he is implicitly requesting by putting this thread up - "here's my first draft at the rules, lemme know what you think and then I'll go from there."

You will find very, very, very few privately-operated sites that, when it comes down to it, operate on any principle other than that. Large, high-traffic forums like this one? You'll be hard pressed to find any which don't, in the end, operate on what's more or less an autocratic principle.

Am I slamming the idea? Absolutely not. It's both the way things are, and the way things should be for sites like this. After all, only one (to my knowledge) user on this site actually legally owns the whole thing.

I can comment and criticise and even (to a point!) challenge, but I have no more right to tell a site owner how their site's run than a guest in my house has to tell me how I run it.


Thank you that explained it perfectly to me and now I can go away and make an informed decision on the rules. :D I thank you for your beautifull clarity *nods*. It is only sad that more are less inclined to bring clarity and more inclined to give obscurity.

[Kaylara]

Personally, I think it's rather common sense that the owner of the site gets to make the rules of the site. He's letting us have a say in what they are because he wants to. *shrugs* But that's just me.

[Twinkle]

Well...since I thought this was a discussion among community members...it hardly seems inappropriate to ask the question....even if others here don't like the question.

Obviously we don't all have "common sense", because I was also interested in finding out how this site was going to be run.

Great way to divide, not bring together.

But maybe that's just me.

[Kaylara]

The discussion here is about the rules, not how the site is going to be run. It's going to be run as it has since day 1. Mol is asking for imput on the potential rules of this site. That's what we're discussing here. I guess if you want to talk about how democratic or undemocratic the site is that it should be in it's own thread, because as far as this discussion goes, that's off topic.

[Baron von Hoopla]

I find it interesting that someone asking for clarification of rather vague rules is repremanded for doing so in a thread created specially for just such a purpose.

Am I the only person who noticed this?

And yes, if someone owns a website they should be able to run it any way they see fit, and the same goes for someone who owns a country: they should be able to kick open doors and smack people around for disscussing things they don't think are 'appropriate' - my question is why the person running the country would think anyone would want to live there?

If workers control the means of production then posters control the means of communication, I would suggest that those who don't like how things are run here should seek a more enlightened 'country'.

Count down to deletion . . .

3...

2...

[Kaylara]

I find it interesting that someone asking for clarification of rather vague rules is repremanded for doing so in a thread created specially for just such a purpose.

Am I the only person who noticed this?

And yes, if someone owns a website they should be able to run it any way they see fit, and the same goes for someone who owns a country: they should be able to kick open doors and smack people around for disscussing things they don't think are 'appropriate' - my question is why the person running the country would think anyone would want to live there?

If workers control the means of production then posters control the means of communication, I would suggest that those who don't like how things are run here should seek a more enlightened 'country'.

Count down to deletion . . .

3...

2...

She was not asking for clairification on any particular rule. She was discussing whether or not this site is a democracy, and she was answered.

Aside from that, I couldn't agree with you more.

[Elderbush]

I like the new rules, but then again I've pretty much been following them all along, as I think the vast majority of posters here have. With the occasional lapse, of course! It is one of the reasons I post here and don't post on another forum of my experience where posters are allowed to savage others at will. Been there, didn't find it fun so thank you for offering people like me a pleasant place to read others thoughts and post my own.

I don't equate having a few rules on a forum with storm troopers kicking in my door but for those that do, there is the freedom of choice. Boards aren't a one size fits all type of thing. I am sure you will find a board that suits you better. I hope when you leave you will be able to wish the people here well as they do you.

[Twinkle]

Honestly...I don't have a problem with the rules, either...as I try my absolute best to follow them.

Most of us try to be courteous and respectful....

Sometimes there is a fine line between voicing an opinion and coming off as rude...as sometimes things are based on interpretation and intent.

Intent can sometimes be a very difficult thing to judge.

Edited to add: That's the problem with the Report Button...although I can't come up with anything better.

Somebody may be having a bad day and report something....which creates animosity between members, harsh or abrupt moderations...and then everyone has hurt feelings and bruised egos.

I'm thinking that the Grievance Forum may be the best way to handle those feelings.

The problem is...if the person being moderated is the only one that can talk....it's hard to defend yourself if you don't know who reported you and for what reason

[Kaylara]

Which is why I suggested posting what was reported about the post, without using that person's name. :)

[Lunacie]

Which is why I suggested posting what was reported about the post, without using that person's name. :)


I don't remember seeing this suggestion before. I think I like it.

[Kaylara]

:) Yeah, I made it in the admin forum, but we're still discussing how that would work. :)

[Morr]

I disagree with letting the community give "constructive suggestions" because this is what you get -- arguments, disagreements, admin modes, bickering, sarcasm, etc.

There is a site owner, there are admins -- They make the rules for the members of this forum.

You dont like it? Leave.

This is exactly why I am not very active on MW. The bickering, sarcasm, arguments and pettiness. You cannot conduct an intellegent, adult debate here without getting into some sort of immature dramatic argument.

[Twinkle]

In all fairness...it's not just the community members that contribute to that. I've seen Admin act in extremely immature and unprofessional ways, as well.

The respect rule goes for everyone. I think it's mentioned in the Rules posted.

[Bethra]

The discussion here is about the rules, not how the site is going to be run. It's going to be run as it has since day 1. Mol is asking for imput on the potential rules of this site. That's what we're discussing here. I guess if you want to talk about how democratic or undemocratic the site is that it should be in it's own thread, because as far as this discussion goes, that's off topic.

Hmm I will for now ignore the fact that I am being refured to as "She" elsewhere in this thread and just comment on this one point.

As I said before for me to work out if I agree with the rules I must also understand what kind of community the rules apply to. This was why I asked my question. I have already explained this if anyone cares to look back a few posts they will find as such.

To further argue the case the comment Kaylara made which I highlighted in bold,
"The discussion here is about the rules, not how the site is going to be run."
A forum IS run by its rules. The two are inseperable. They both relate heavily to eachother. Rules that don't go towards the running of the comunity would be pointless. A community without rules would falter and colapse instantly.

In order for me to know if I agree with the rules I must also understand fully what kind of community those rules apply to. I don't apreachiate being spoken down to and told I obviously don't understand a clear directive when I asked a simple question which would help me understand fully how the rules applied. It has become quite self evident in this thread alown that the rule of respect doesn't apply to me since I have been spoken down too and been demoted to being refured to as SHE rather than by my name by two administration staff. but I guess thats just fine since the owner and staff can talk to me however they please so the respect rule still doesn't work, even with further clarification.

This one rule which has been further outlined in this set of rules is still never going to work. I feel like I have been disrespected, but thats ok because who the hell am I anyway right? Who am I but a bone picker, an attention seeking drama monger? I've said all along I'm nobody, just a bunch of letters on the screen. One time someone said I was wrong on that, but its just been proved again here in this thread, that I am viewed as nothing more than an annoying little trouble maker who irritates the administration staff with her constant probing questions. Questions which don't require answers as far as they are concerned since the rules of respect obviously don't appley to someone you don't have any respect for.

The rules as they stand are ok I guess but I still don't see them being implicated in a fare and just way, but hey what does it matter what I think? I'm just one little voice right? I'm not important at all ;). Right?

EVERYONE has to live by these rules though or else its a class system. Not a single person, not even the administration staff should be alowed to get around the rules. Since it all boiles down to one main rule I would ask that EVERYONE at least try not to cause offence by being belittling and disrespectfull even to someone as insignificant as me. I am however dubious that this will be honoured since it seams to be way too much for most people to even try and maintain.

The Respect Rule Doesn't Work end of. People will always make things personal when they run out of ground with their arguments. People will always find it impossible to debate just the topic as long as they have a personal involvment in the issue. There is no way round that as has been quite evidently shown here already. People will 9 times out of 10 react badly to a moderation espechialy when they feel the people doing the moderating dislike them or disrespect them. People will always feel persicuted and discriminated against unless they are being moderated by their peers. This is the facts of human nature for you. Its not me being bitchy or creating drama its just how it is. Hardly anyone on this forum live in a dictatorship and so we have come to expect some amount of freedom in our online communities. Give us people who we like and respect and feel liked and respected by to lay down the law over us and we will in general be a lot less bother and a lot more agreable. Force feed us and we will eventualy spew it back at you. That is the nature of people, that is the nature of sociaties, that is the nature of communities.

So yeah yeah whatever to the rest of the rules but all those which apply to respect DON'T WORK.

[Kaylara]

Hmm I will for now ignore the fact that I am being refured to as "She" elsewhere in this thread and just comment on this one point.

I find it interesting that someone asking for clarification of rather vague rules is repremanded for doing so in a thread created specially for just such a purpose.
I'm sorry, Baron Von Hoopla also failed to call you by name. I was responding to him, and it was obvious to whom I was speaking to, thus the lack of name. I wonder why you are not as upset that he did not use your name.



As I said before for me to work out if I agree with the rules I must also understand what kind of community the rules apply to. This was why I asked my question. I have already explained this if anyone cares to look back a few posts they will find as such. I understood what you wrote, but you were also answered. I think that Zbblsnrt did a good job too.



To further argue the case the comment Kaylara made which I highlighted in bold,
"The discussion here is about the rules, not how the site is going to be run."
A forum IS run by its rules. The two are inseperable. They both relate heavily to eachother. Rules that don't go towards the running of the comunity would be pointless. A community without rules would falter and colapse instantly. Yes, it would. However, the site is run as the owner of the site wants it to be run. He is being concerned and willing to work with the community, thus the current thread. I do not think it is rocket science to think that the owner of a site will make the rules on their own site.



In order for me to know if I agree with the rules I must also understand fully what kind of community those rules apply to. I don't apreachiate being spoken down to and told I obviously don't understand a clear directive when I asked a simple question which would help me understand fully how the rules applied. It has become quite self evident in this thread alown that the rule of respect doesn't apply to me since I have been spoken down too and been demoted to being refured to as SHE rather than by my name by two administration staff. but I guess thats just fine since the owner and staff can talk to me however they please so the respect rule still doesn't work, even with further clarification.
You assume you are being spoken down to. I cannot help if you assume that you are being persecuted. I honestly think it's common sense to think that someone who owns a website gets to call the shots on his own website. As I said before, I am not the only one who refered to you without using your name, but you seemed to have no problem with them doing it, and I don't know why you seem to have a problem with me following their style of conversing. I guess that's just fine. People who want to feel persecuted will do so with the barest persumed instance of an insult.


This one rule which has been further outlined in this set of rules is still never going to work. I feel like I have been disrespected, but thats ok because who the hell am I anyway right? Who am I but a bone picker, an attention seeking drama monger? I've said all along I'm nobody, just a bunch of letters on the screen. One time someone said I was wrong on that, but its just been proved again here in this thread, that I am viewed as nothing more than an annoying little trouble maker who irritates the administration staff with her constant probing questions. Questions which don't require answers as far as they are concerned since the rules of respect obviously don't appley to someone you don't have any respect for.
Your "constant probing questions" have been nothing but thinly veiled attacks on the administrators every time you comment on the subject. We don't even need to give you a reason, because you'll find one anyways. Should I take opinions like that seriously? Why should I? No matter what the administrators do, it won't make any difference to someone who is trying to find the persecution between the lines. I see no reason why questions that are attacks should even be answered by *ANY* administrator on this site. I seriously suggest that you consider your own actions before making accusations against anyone else.


The rules as they stand are ok I guess but I still don't see them being implicated in a fare and just way, but hey what does it matter what I think? I'm just one little voice right? I'm not important at all ;). Right? What you're saying (as far as I can see) in this is that regardless of anything that we do to improve the current rule structure, you are automatically dooming it. Fair and just? To whom? To someone who wants to be able to act in one way but can't handle it when someone else reacts in the same way? Fair to someone who wants to come to the site without wading through a dozen snotty posts by people who's own proclaimed objective is to cause problems on the site? Fair to anyone who wants to have an honest conversation without someone coming in and screaming that they're being persecuted? Some people don't care. Some people just want to come here and enjoy themselves. Believe it or not, not everyone on this site is disgruntled and thinks that they're being persecuted.


EVERYONE has to live by these rules though or else its a class system. Not a single person, not even the administration staff should be alowed to get around the rules. Since it all boiles down to one main rule I would ask that EVERYONE at least try not to cause offence by being belittling and disrespectfull even to someone as insignificant as me. I am however dubious that this will be honoured since it seams to be way too much for most people to even try and maintain. People have different ideas of respect. You seem to feel slighted simply by my not including your name in a post. If we keep the level of respect that you are screaming about, no one should post anything because by using the English language you are persecuting everyone who speaks another language.

We are putting forth a suggestion of the rules. If you like them, fine. If you don't, then tell us why. If you believe that they won't be enforced, then fine, believe that. If the admins do not follow these rules, they will not be admins for very much longer. And I will say this again. Being rude is not against the rules.


The Respect Rule Doesn't Work end of. People will always make things personal when they run out of ground with their arguments. People will always find it impossible to debate just the topic as long as they have a personal involvment in the issue. There is no way round that as has been quite evidently shown here already. People will 9 times out of 10 react badly to a moderation espechialy when they feel the people doing the moderating dislike them or disrespect them. People will always feel persicuted and discriminated against unless they are being moderated by their peers. This is the facts of human nature for you. Its not me being bitchy or creating drama its just how it is. Hardly anyone on this forum live in a dictatorship and so we have come to expect some amount of freedom in our online communities. Give us people who we like and respect and feel liked and respected by to lay down the law over us and we will in general be a lot less bother and a lot more agreable. Force feed us and we will eventualy spew it back at you. That is the nature of people, that is the nature of sociaties, that is the nature of communities. I call bullshit. We include people in our staff who have proven their ability to be impartial and they are still screamed at that they are being brainwashed, etc, into behaving like the rest of us, or that they're traitors. It never occurs to people that given the evidence, they agree with the rest of the admins. We are your peers. You're the one that keeps setting yourself apart from every other member on this site, not me. Like you said in this post, it doesn't seem to matter what the person did to get the moderation. If they feel persecuted, then it doesn't matter how badly they are acting to get that moderation. They are of course justified in breaking the rules, because they're so persecuted.

Whatever.

You're responsible for you own actions on this site. If you cannot take responsibility for you own actions, then you shouldn't be posting here. It's not like real life where sometimes you say things you don't mean. Here you have to think, then type what you're thinking, and then hit that cute little post button. There are plenty of instances in there where you can think to yourself: Should I post this? If you don't bother to do that then you will have no choice but to accept the consequences of your actions.



So yeah yeah whatever to the rest of the rules but all those which apply to respect DON'T WORK.

Your opinion is duly noted, and your opinion of respect is also duly noted. This being said, if you have nothing constructive to say to fix said problems aside from "This one or that one should be fired!" please consider that we are looking for constructive critcism here about the rules, not someone's personal prejudice against the administrators.

[Twinkle]

Kay...I'm honestly not trying to cause problems here...but the Administrators are the ones enforcing the rules.

If people have issues with certain Administrators, why can't that be brought up?

The rules are up to interpretation by whoever is moderating a reported post. If people have issues with a certain moderating styles...and feel that that style is just as disrespectful as the reported post and respect violation....why aren't we allowed to discuss that in this thread?

You and I both know that people have issues with this....and feel that certain moderations have been just as inciteful and disrespectful as the post being moderated. It's a valid concern...and falls in very well with how the rules apply to everyone.

We are talking about the rules and what is expected of both Admin and community members, right?

[Twinkle]

And I fail to see how being rude is any different from being disrespectful.

[Twinkle]

rude  /rud/ Pronunciation Key (http://www.mysticwicks.com/) - Show Spelled Pronunciation (http://www.mysticwicks.com/)[rood] Pronunciation Key (http://www.mysticwicks.com/) - Show IPA Pronunciation (http://www.mysticwicks.com/)

–adjective, rud‧er, rud‧est. 1.discourteous or impolite, esp. in a deliberate way: a rude reply. 2.without culture, learning, or refinement: rude, illiterate peasants. 3.rough in manners or behavior; unmannerly; uncouth. 4.rough, harsh, or ungentle: rude hands. 5.roughly wrought, built, or formed; of a crude construction or kind: a rude cottage. 6.not properly or fully developed; raw; unevolved: a rude first stage of development. 7.harsh to the ear: rude sounds. 8.without artistic elegance; of a primitive simplicity: a rude design. 9.violent or tempestuous, as the waves. 10.robust, sturdy, or vigorous: rude strength. 11.approximate or tentative: a rude first calculation of costs.
[Origin: 1300–50; ME rude, ruide (< OF) < L rudis]

[Kaylara]

Why, you can. If you have a problem with a particular admin you're always welcome to contact them or another admin about that admin.

But I'm sick and tired of responding to attacks on the admins. Don't believe we have been getting them consistantly from the same people for a few months? Contact me for proof. If you feel someone's style of moderation is a problem or disrespectful (not rude. Again, being rude is not against the rules.) then report the moderation. And reporting a moderation is not a green light to continue to harass the admins behind closed doors. (again, if you want proof, contact me.) Admins will enjoy the same degree of respect as the rest of the members on this site. Which is exactly why we will take any discussion of an admin's style to pm's. Period.

Simply put, I'm not going to allow a dog pile on the admins in this or any other thread. I'm similarly not going to allow it to happen to any other member on this site.

Admins are members of this community first and foremost. I expect that there will be a certain degree of respect given to anyone on this site. Veiled or open attacks on anyone will be dealt with seriously. And the admins will follow and enforce the rules that are put out by the owner of this site as he wants them to be enforced and as he states the rules. If we do not do our job, we will not have our job anymore. We have plenty of exadmins here who will attest to that fact.

So again, I ask people to stop conjecturing about what might possibly maybe will happen at some point sometime in the future, and stick to the topic at hand, which is this present list of rules. If we are not going to have any more constructive discussion on this subject, then I think the discussion should be closed, and the new rules implimented.

[Twinkle]

dis‧re‧spect‧ful  /ˌdɪshttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngrɪˈspɛkthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngfəl/ Pronunciation Key (http://www.mysticwicks.com/) - Show Spelled Pronunciation (http://www.mysticwicks.com/)[dis-ri-spekt-fuhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngl] Pronunciation Key (http://www.mysticwicks.com/) - Show IPA Pronunciation (http://www.mysticwicks.com/)

–adjective characterized by, having, or showing disrespect; lacking courtesy or esteem: a disrespectful remark about teachers.




If you look at the definitions....they are the same.


Unless, of course, that's up to the interpretation of Admin, as well.

[Kaylara]

And I fail to see how being rude is any different from being disrespectful.

Being rude is not and will never be against the rules here. Otherwise I'm going to ban just about every person who's ever posted on this site. Someone's ability to tell rudeness from disrespect, and disagreement from disrespect, and a personal attack from rudeness or disrespect is not within my realm of responsibility, nor is it my problem.

[TerminallyUnique]

'Impartial'?
the reply was a bit too emotionally loaded for me to be classed as impartial.

Snidery is beneath this website, lets not try to plumb its depths.
Respect is a nebulous ideal to my mind, and ultimately the general feel of the site will be dictated and approved by Mol.
Actions of moderators I feel, shall give an indication of the psyche if you like, of the goal of this particular on-line society.
I for one, watch and learn.

I wish you all well, and further good luck.

[Kaylara]

Btw Mol, I win. It took a bit longer than I expected, but here it is and I win. ;)

[Twinkle]

Gotcha. We're supposed to be talking about the wording of the rules....but not any sort of interpretation of what they are.

[Zibblsnrt]

The rules are up to interpretation by whoever is moderating a reported post. If people have issues with a certain moderating styles...and feel that that style is just as disrespectful as the reported post and respect violation....why aren't we allowed to discuss that in this thread?

I'd assume you aren't allowed to discuss them in this thread because they're not what this thread is meant to discuss. I see a thread titled "the rules of respect and MW guidelines," and it seems a lot of people don't really want to discuss the specific post which says what this thread is supposed to be about (http://mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=2840732&postcount=1).

Problems in how they're applied are simultaneously outside of, and integral to, the set of rules Mol posted for discussion here (http://mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=2840732&postcount=1). Problems with someone's moderation style have been addressed quite easily and quite often in my time here, by myself and others - hell, I've seen bans reversed over them at least once.

Why is it so hard to start up another thread to discuss another topic, or even contact the mods or administration directly? Your rights aren't being violated by requiring this thread to solely discuss the actual topic of this thread (http://mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=2840732&postcount=1). Ignoring those for sophistry about admin modes or extremely subjective redefinitions of what constitutes disrespect is hardly appropriate, especially when you're being given the right to comment on the rules as proposed (http://mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=2840732&postcount=1) in a forum where, as I said, the mods have every right to be as arbitrary as they wish.

As to your specific problems with what constitutes disrespect, I refer you back to the original post in the thread (http://mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=2840732&postcount=1), which diverges wildly from earlier respect policies by actually defining what the term constitutes in the eyes of the administrators, something I'd personally been curious about since last February and was pleased to see explicitly stated.

Really, at this point it's only as complicated as people in this thread seem to wish it to be.

[Twinkle]

I honestly am not trying to make anything difficult...but I didn't understand something so I asked a question for clarification.

If that makes me difficult, I am sorry.

No attitude, no sarcasm....It was an honest question that I truly felt was for discussion.

[Twinkle]

Btw Mol, I win. It took a bit longer than I expected, but here it is and I win. ;)


Please let us know what the prize is...maybe a new car?:)

[Kaylara]

Ooo! I hope so! Or maybe a raise! From $0,000.00 to $00,000.00! Extra zeros! Woot!

*knows she should have bet actual money*

[Bethra]

I wasn't going for the persicution vote actualy, Nor do I feel particularly persicuted so I wont borther to answer any comments refuring to persicution. :)

Niether did I call for any sacking of current staff. Read my words again and this time try not to take it like a personal attack. I only said that people respond better to the rulers they vote for themselves. I never once said that anyone should be sacked I simply said that people are more content being judged by their peers. As you are not responcable for how easily I can be offended I am not responcable for how you misinterprate my words. ;)

My sujestion as to how to make the rules work is simple. Have people chosen to over see and moderate indervidual forums. Have the people who frequent the indervidual forums nominate someone to moderate over them just as we did in the selection of forum guides. Hell why not let the forum guides moderate in their own forum for that matter since they were already selected as suitable for the position of over seer for that forum anyway? Final desision comes down to Mol obviously but at least everyone feels they are fairly well represented.

In the light of the "no carrying arguments out of one forum into another" rule I feel this is even more important. How can people be expected to maitain a rule they can't be sure will be maintained by Administration? How can we be sure our words in one forum wouldn't be used against us unjustly in another forum? We can't as long as the over riding power over rides the forum as a whole. You are all as human as any of us on here and I understand the human failings we each suffer from. We non of us can claime to be totaly imparshal it is rediculous to sujest such a thing. So why not have a council of mods, say two to a forum, and leave the current team as over all admin staff to be consulted on repeat offenders and more difficult matters. Bring back the difference between Mods and Admins rather than a small few having to struggle through handling everything.

This community is expanding, its staffing levels need to expand with it. If we are to expect people to give out respect we must first make the community feel like its views are being respected. The law of return in the human ellement is not threefold. We recive that which we give out in equal amounts.

[Twinkle]

Ooo! I hope so! Or maybe a raise! From $0,000.00 to $00,000.00! Extra zeros! Woot!

*knows she should have bet actual money*


It's too bad you didn't....if I helped you win the bet it would only be fair of you to split it with me.

We could have been rich.:boing:

[Kaylara]

I wasn't going for the persicution vote actualy, Nor do I feel particularly persicuted so I wont borther to answer any comments refuring to persicution. :)

Niether did I call for any sacking of current staff. Read my words again and this time try not to take it like a personal attack. I only said that people respond better to the rulers they vote for themselves. I never once said that anyone should be sacked I simply said that people are more content being judged by their peers. As you are not responcable for how easily I can be offended I am not responcable for how you misinterprate my words. ;)

My sujestion as to how to make the rules work is simple. Have people chosen to over see and moderate indervidual forums. Have the people who frequent the indervidual forums nominate someone to moderate over them just as we did in the selection of forum guides. Hell why not let the forum guides moderate in their own forum for that matter since they were already selected as suitable for the position of over seer for that forum anyway? Final desision comes down to Mol obviously but at least everyone feels they are fairly well represented.

In the light of the "no carrying arguments out of one forum into another" rule I feel this is even more important. How can people be expected to maitain a rule they can't be sure will be maintained by Administration? How can we be sure our words in one forum wouldn't be used against us unjustly in another forum? We can't as long as the over riding power over rides the forum as a whole. You are all as human as any of us on here and I understand the human failings we each suffer from. We non of us can claime to be totaly imparshal it is rediculous to sujest such a thing. So why not have a council of mods, say two to a forum, and leave the current team as over all admin staff to be consulted on repeat offenders and more difficult matters. Bring back the difference between Mods and Admins rather than a small few having to struggle through handling everything.

This community is expanding, its staffing levels need to expand with it. If we are to expect people to give out respect we must first make the community feel like its views are being respected. The law of return in the human ellement is not threefold. We recive that which we give out in equal amounts.

Well, I wouldn't have mentioned persecution at all had your entire post not dripped of it, though happily avoiding the actual word "persecution".

This thread, again, is not about your problems with the staff, nor with the staffing structure. If there are changes made to the staff or the way we staff this site, it will be because Mol sees a need for it and impliments it. It probably will not ever be a vote put out to the entire community. There are several reasons for this, that I'm not going to bother getting into because as I said, it's off topic.

This community has been expanding since before I even joined. This is nothing new. We try to change with the times as we think is the best for the entire community and many times based upon suggestions from the community. But please, don't imply that this growth is a new thing.

So, getting back on topic. Rules as listed in post 1 of this thread. What do you think? Any suggestions?

[Kaylara]

It's too bad you didn't....if I helped you win the bet it would only be fair of you to split it with me.

We could have been rich.:boing:

LMAO! I highly doubt it. But we could have at least gotten a free beer or something!

[Bethra]

Well, I wouldn't have mentioned persecution at all had your entire post not dripped of it, though happily avoiding the actual word "persecution".

This thread, again, is not about your problems with the staff, nor with the staffing structure. If there are changes made to the staff or the way we staff this site, it will be because Mol sees a need for it and impliments it. It probably will not ever be a vote put out to the entire community. There are several reasons for this, that I'm not going to bother getting into because as I said, it's off topic.

This community has been expanding since before I even joined. This is nothing new. We try to change with the times as we think is the best for the entire community and many times based upon suggestions from the community. But please, don't imply that this growth is a new thing.

So, getting back on topic. Rules as listed in post 1 of this thread. What do you think? Any suggestions?


That was a suggestion about how to make them work but never mind that was obviously obscured in some way.

As I said before all the rest of the rules are basicaly the same as before. Only the respect rule is the one I see as problematic. I was simpley suggesting a way the problems with the respect rule might be ironed out.

Forgive me, quite obviously I should better understand my position here and only say yes I like or no I don't, rather than offer such humble a thing as a suggestion as to how to make something work little better.

Oh and I didn't say that the forum was only just expanding now. I just said it was expanding and staffing levels should reflect that. If there is some legitamate reasons why my suggestion shouldn't be implicated then please explain for me, so I can feel my suggestion has been given serious consideration and acorded the attention warented to the energy that was put into its creation.

I also want to clarify again that I didn't say the community should be allowed to vote for their moderators, only to make nominations of people they thought would be correct for the position. Again I say obviously Mol has final over all say who works for him and who doesn't.

Oh and a final suggestion to help the rules of respect work correctly, might as well say it now before I get told to get back on topic even though it is. Can spiritual sactuary please have its double billing with Pagan. I know a lot of people are resentfull of the implied messages which can be drawn from the dropping of the "Spiritual Sactuary".

[Kaylara]

What problem is there with being respectful to people on the site? I don't think that it's a terribly hard concept to understand. I honestly don't see any suggestion from you on how to iron out any issues you have with the rule of respecting each other.

Spiritual Sanctuary? That was something added quite a time after this venture started. I don't know why it was dropped, but that's a decision that was made by Mol. So you'll have to ask him.

[Zibblsnrt]

Forgive me, quite obviously I should better understand my position here and only say yes I like or no I don't, rather than offer such humble a thing as a suggestion as to how to make something work little better.

I think you're rather misinterpreting things here. You're bringing moderator selection procedures and stuff in, when what's up for discussion is what the standards of behaviour are supposed to be.

Put another way, Mol's asking what you think of his idea for a new haircut, and you're responding with suggestions about his shoes.

[Twinkle]

I think you're rather misinterpreting things here. You're bringing moderator selection procedures and stuff in, when what's up for discussion is what the standards of behaviour are supposed to be.

Put another way, Mol's asking what you think of his idea for a new haircut, and you're responding with suggestions about his shoes.


Well...when I brought up standards of behavior for Admin and the Community you told me I wasn't supposed to be discussing that either.

I wish you'd make up your mind what we're supposed to be discussing.....oh wait, you're not Admin, are you?

[SwordsFlameSong]

I have to agree with you Zibblsnrt.

From what Mol has said it is just the rules. A means to clarify the criteria used in making a decision to admin or not - a guide as to what is considered appropriate for his site.

I have been a member of numerous sites over the past ten years or so. I have belonged to some where it was a free for all (an anti PC site), a fundamentalist Christian site - and yeah they knew I was pagan. The only one who was allowed in btw.

The point is. Every message board is owned by someone who has put in a lot of time and money into it. That makes it their site. Each site had it's on set of rules. None of these sites requested input on how to run things or a vote on who would help run things.

That's my opinion.

[Twinkle]

I have to agree with you Zibblsnrt.

From what Mol has said it is just the rules. A means to clarify the criteria used in making a decision to admin or not - a guide as to what is considered appropriate for his site.

I have been a member of numerous sites over the past ten years or so. I have belonged to some where it was a free for all (an anti PC site), a fundamentalist Christian site - and yeah they knew I was pagan. The only one who was allowed in btw.

The point is. Every message board is owned by someone who has put in a lot of time and money into it. That makes it their site. Each site had it's on set of rules. None of these sites requested input on how to run things or a vote on who would help run things.

That's my opinion.


I'm confused then. We're open for discussion of the rules...but we're not allowed to bring up circumstances where the rules were problematic and figure out how to fix that.....

I swear I am not trying to be difficult...I just don't understand the parameters of what we are allowed to talk and not talk about.

I have no problem with a privately owned site being run by someone and that someone making the rules.

Why ask for discussion...unless all you want is people agreeing with everything.

[Phoenix Blue]

I'm confused then. We're open for discussion of the rules...but we're not allowed to bring up circumstances where the rules were problematic and figure out how to fix that.....

I swear I am not trying to be difficult...I just don't understand the parameters of what we are allowed to talk and not talk about.
Here's some advice from a former admin: It's not rocket science. In fact, it's easy.

If you see the words ADMIN MODE, it's unwise at best to discuss publicly the matter that brought the admin's attention in the first place. At that point, your best course of action is to PM the admin and talk about the moderation privately.

If you have a more general concern, that might be more appropriate for a public discussion. In any case, public discussion of moderations tends to bring about melodrama.

[Zibblsnrt]

Well...when I brought up standards of behavior for Admin and the Community you told me I wasn't supposed to be discussing that either.

Not in this particular thread. That's the key thing here. This thread is "what are the rules to be?" not "who's behaving appropriately according to them?"

The specific topic of this thread is the rules proposed in post #1 here. Other topics, like how moderators are selected, are not the specific topic of this thread, and it's been repeatedly stated that the mods will be happy to bring those up in the approriate venue - another thread devoted specifically to that concept. In that thread, quibbling over the minutiae from the first post in this one would be inappropriate. This is as it should be.


I wish you'd make up your mind what we're supposed to be discussing.....oh wait, you're not Admin, are you?

Nah, I'm just a civilian.

[Twinkle]

Here's some advice from a former admin: It's not rocket science. In fact, it's easy.

If you see the words ADMIN MODE, it's unwise at best to discuss publicly the matter that brought the admin's attention in the first place. At that point, your best course of action is to PM the admin and talk about the moderation privately.

If you have a more general concern, that might be more appropriate for a public discussion. In any case, public discussion of moderations tends to bring about melodrama.


I guess me and a bunch of other people must be shtoopid then. Sorry for not being as smart as the rest of y'all.

That said....I understand now.

I guess we can't talk about the rules in any way that would make anyone feel uncomfortable or defensive.

Got it.

[SwordsFlameSong]

I guess me and a bunch of other people must be shtoopid then. Sorry for not being as smart as the rest of y'all.

That said....I understand now.

I guess we can't talk about the rules in any way that would make anyone feel uncomfortable or defensive.

Got it.

Actually, that isn't what Phoenix Blue was saying.

And no one is saying that a discussion can't include those opinions that make people uncomfortable. If that were the case on this site we'd better go shut down political pagan and a few other subforums.

As far as respect itself goes. Well how far can one define it on a website? There is much lost in the written word. We have no non-verbal or even verbal cues to go by. We have written words and smilies. That's it.

My take is, the attempt to better define the criteria is a step forward to shoring up what are communication issues. The difficulty lies with intent vs perception. What one sees as offensive another won't and so on.

To make it work I believe that biases need to be stepped back from. Frustration is also going to be detrimental to the goal. We need to step outside of our boxes and just go ya or nay on the rules. Share the reservations you have. But we do need to take care with how we express it. We are running the risk of coming across as attacking. That defeats us all as it closes down ommunications.

[Twinkle]

Sword...that made complete sense.

I guess I get upset when I ask clarification of something I don't understand and I'm basically told I'm stupid.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

You have excellent people skills.

[SwordsFlameSong]

Sword...that made complete sense.

I guess I get upset when I ask clarification of something I don't understand and I'm basically told I'm stupid.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

You have excellent people skills.

Every now and then I do make some sense. :nyah:
The head cold meds help. LOL

Seriously, I admit that I am compartmentalizing right now. Specifically, deal with the deeper rule clarification first. Whe

OnceAll that is ironed out the G forum goes up. Community members won't be able to post at will there but questions and concerns and they can pm those. That's when we can address how the "new" rule set will function in reality.

Right now, we can theorize but none can really know how the new tools will function in practicality. We will see some pros that we may not have expected and some cons. Whatever happens it does give the opportunity for constructive feedback and further tweaking. That is important to keep in mind.

All that being said, we are changing as a community and we are all in the same boat as far it goes. At least it isn't a boring ride eh?8O

[coaxialkettle]

chairdogs&chaircats&mittens&kittens;
op.cit.op.cit.op.cit.
she's a good ship
she will fly...

"they knew i had been buffaloed and hippoed and giraffed
they knew how bad my training was
but now i'm drifting out to sea with thousands on a raft
with thousands,thousands on a raft..."

[pete brown&piblokto!]
"things may come&things may go;
but the Art School Dance goes on
Forever...."

[Bethra]

2. Debate the idea, don't attack the poster. Calling someone "neocon filth"/"Liberal traitor"/"Fluffy bunny"/"idiot"/"dumbass"/"moron"/"crackpot"/"conservative arsehole"/"big loser", actually, any name-calling whatsoever is not a refutation of an idea, it's a verbal (yah, yah...typed, written, etc) attack of another member of this community and it will not be tolerated. Notice that we are talking about verbal attacks between members. You are free to call, for example, George Bush...a big loser, until the time comes when Mr. Bush joins the community. Then he must be respected like every other member. Also, no condescending stuff. Calling someone sweetypie, honeybunch, hun, missy, might just be the way you talk, but it can also imply a condescending tone. We have no way of knowing which way you are using the term...so if you are addressing someone directly, just use their username.

Debating the issue in this thread has gotten us nowhere, a debate in which people simpley say "yes I agree" or "no I don't" isn't a debate at all. Debates should have reason and be working towards some kind of resolution of the matter at hand. In this case if I say "As it stands the respect rule does not work" I must first give examples of why it does not work and then give examples of how it might be made to work. In this I am showing a willingness to consider all sides of the debate. If I wanted to be difficult and just create drama I would simpley be showing constant examples of how the respect rule doesn't work rather than giving my ideas on how it might possibley be made to work. However when I do this I am told I'm off topic and should start another thread regarding it.


11. Arguments are NOT to be carried from one thread or forum to another. Neither will things said on other forums be used as cause for discipline here...but by the same token, arguments from off-site STAY off-site. Private, real life problems between members needs to be settled in private and off of the public boards.

Harsh implicasion of this rule will also prove problematic. In this thread here we are being told we must only debate the rules, not offer suggestions on how they can be better applied. An argument on the matter is already under go. If I was to take the advice from Sword or Kaylara and begin a new thread debating the easiest ways to implicate the rules that could be instantly classified as taking an argument out of one thread and begining it in another I could be instantly moderated and the thread closed. If I tried to start such a thread in this forum, since all threads started in here need admin aproval, it could be instantly quashed before it ever made it onto the forum. So yes this rule is definatly problematic. I disagree with this rule over all, I understand why it's there but I don't see a way of implicating it without placing heavy restrictions on everyone. I forsee it could lead to rules laywers waving it about whenever they feel it is being misused or held up as an example of when its not being used.


13. Nobody is above the rules, whether they be a mod, an admin, etc.

Without an ombussman or similar this rule doesn't work. Who moderates the moderator? Implicate it or remove it otherwise it will lead to rules laywers waving it about whenever they feel it is being misused.

There's a couple of pointers for starters on the areas I believe to be a problem in the rules for this forum as it stands right now. I have given examples of why it doesn't work and since that is all I am invited to do in this thread I have stuck within the limits of what is deamed on topic and been forced to maintain a very one sided opinion.

I refuse to be forced to only discuse on a linier basis. Conversations like threads grow and expand. Untill all aspects of the topic are discussed there is no balance and can be no resolution. Discussing the rules, espechialy when they aren't working will by natural progression lead to discusion of how the rules can be improved and how they can be implicated. If you don't want full discusion then Mol needs to post the rules and make it instantly a closed thread. He didn't do this, he left it open inviting discusion. As such I will discuss everything about it including ways it can be implicated and how it falls down. I'm sorry that is so very difficult to understand but quite honestly to my perspective I can't seperate the rules from their problems and their implications and how they might applied. Excuse me for thinking in spider graphs rather than doggedly sticking to a worn out topic.

[SSanf]

Being rude is not and will never be against the rules here. Otherwise I'm going to ban just about every person who's ever posted on this site. Someone's ability to tell rudeness from disrespect, and disagreement from disrespect, and a personal attack from rudeness or disrespect is not within my realm of responsibility, nor is it my problem.Some people consider a straight forward and strong statement of an opinion, that disagrees with their own to be rude.

And, in some social settings, it is. You can't make nor enforce a rule against being rude in a forum like this.

Good grief! Why is there all this carrying on about the moderators and the moderation? We have just been promised a place to discuss complaints with moderation. What the heck more do you want? You just cannot please some people because no matter what you do they will not BE pleased!

How does that pertain to the analysis of the proposed rules?

[Kaylara]

*admin mode*

It doesn't actually. And as such, I'm putting a stop to it now. Bethra, you have been told several times to knock off the shit. You refuse to discuss the topic at hand and insist on discussing your problem with the running of the site, not the rules. You're personal vendetta can be best carried out somewhere else. Because you are unable to discuss the topic at hand, you are no longer welcome to discuss this topic.

[SammieAnn]

Some people consider a straight forward and strong statement of an opinion, that disagrees with their own to be rude.

And, in some social settings, it is. You can't make nor enforce a rule against being rude in a forum like this.

Good grief! Why is there all this carrying on about the moderators and the moderation? We have just been promised a place to discuss complaints with moderation. What the heck more do you want? You just cannot please some people because no matter what you do they will not BE pleased!

How does that pertain to the analysis of the proposed rules?

I think the carrying on about the moderations (using your terms here) is about the fact that people want to make sure that those said moderations are carried out in a fair and impartial way. I see these concerns to be valid and should be addressed. Again my oppinion.

[Kaylara]

And it's a perfectly valid point to bring up but not in this thread. This is why we are going to have the grievence forum. It's been requested several times to discuss the rules as listed in the first post of this thread. Not to discuss staffing issues or structures, or making veiled attacks against the administrators of the site under the false label of concern. And some people will never be happy, which is unfortunate. I know that I speak for the rest of the administrators here when I say I'm tired of the bullshit, and it's going to stop now.

If you have a problem with the staff, either take it up with Mol or if it's a specific issue, wait until the grievence forum comes online and address it there. Staffing issues will not be discussed in this thread any more. Period.

If you have something constructive to add to this thread that is on topic, please feel free to.

[SSanf]

I think the carrying on about the moderations (using your terms here) is about the fact that people want to make sure that those said moderations are carried out in a fair and impartial way. I see these concerns to be valid and should be addressed. Again my oppinion.No one is declining to discuss that issue. The point is, that this thread is about what rules the mods will be called upon to enforce. That is a different subject. And, I am absolutely sure we are welcome to discuss it in another thread.

Perhaps, the thread won't get back on topic because everyone has already said all they have to say about it, so the thread can't get back on topic.

That happens when people run out of things to say on a subject.

This thread has been up since Oct 8, and that is a very long time in internet time.

Answer to a question about the rules above, relative to enforcement. The moderators moderate the moderators. That is not a problem. You can use the report button on a moderator the same as on anyone else and, if needed, they will be moderated. Even if they are on duty, it is passed to another moderator to decide and do the deed.

I know this works because I have seen moderators warned by other moderators on quite a few occasions. Do I need to post where it happened only yesterday as proof? I can, you know. This is a non-issue and a red herring. It is also an untrue and unfair aspersion against the characters of moderators.

The moderators are required to follow the same rules as everyone else and ARE NOT treated like special privilaged characters.

[covenofkeys]

mmmm.#scratches head# this threads going really well-certainly doesnt make things look good to any newbies.
not my idea of a decent/fair discussion. i think id rather stay out of all this rubbish,thanks.
#leaves hastilly, shaking head in disgust.#

[kai wren]

Discuss! Constructive suggestions are encouraged. No arguing!

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly what Bethra offered? Constructive suggestions? I mean, an ombudsman sounds like a fair enough request to me, and the rest of the post seemed to be on-topic to me.

Well... assuming I haven't made a horrible mistake discussing that in public, I would like to state that I agree with the suggestions offered by Bethra- The rule about nobody being above moderation would seem to mean nothing without an impartial judge, and the rule about not carrying arguments from one thread/forum to another would also seem problematic.

Just my thoughts.

[Twinkle]

No one is declining to discuss that issue. The point is, that this thread is about what rules the mods will be called upon to enforce. That is a different subject. And, I am absolutely sure we are welcome to discuss it in another thread.

Perhaps, the thread won't get back on topic because everyone has already said all they have to say about it, so the thread can't get back on topic.

That happens when people run out of things to say on a subject.

This thread has been up since Oct 8, and that is a very long time in internet time.

Answer to a question about the rules above, relative to enforcement. The moderators moderate the moderators. That is not a problem. You can use the report button on a moderator the same as on anyone else and, if needed, they will be moderated. Even if they are on duty, it is passed to another moderator to decide and do the deed.

I know this works because I have seen moderators warned by other moderators on quite a few occasions. Do I need to post where it happened only yesterday as proof? I can, you know. This is a non-issue and a red herring. It is also an untrue and unfair aspersion against the characters of moderators.

The moderators are required to follow the same rules as everyone else and ARE NOT treated like special privilaged characters.


Why do you assume that because someone questions something, it's an unfair aspersion, or as someone mentioned, a veiled attack?

I have no agenda...and I asked the question?

Your statement is really the unfair assumption that anyone who asks something that may be unpopular is attacking the character of the Moderators.

Just saying.

[SSanf]

What you say may be true. But, I have seen so many unfair, untrue, needless and outright mean attacks on the mods, that I do have a knee jerk reaction to the whole subject. Heck, they are doing a job that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole!

If no one meant it that way, I apologize. But, only to those who had no such intent.

[Elderbush]

I think the rule about there being a special place complain about mods and their behavior, is a good one. It is what has worked on other boards. When it is over, it should be over and the complainer should shut up or leave the board if they can't deal or are terminally unhappy. This board is not designed to suit every person on the internet. I'm sure they will find themselves a more comfortable niche.

[SSanf]

You got that right!

[Twinkle]

I think the rule about there being a special place complain about mods and their behavior, is a good one. It is what has worked on other boards. When it is over, it should be over and the complainer should shut up or leave the board if they can't deal or are terminally unhappy. This board is not designed to suit every person on the internet. I'm sure they will find themselves a more comfortable niche.


Some people truly love it here...and just want to be heard and not thrown out with the trash because their personality may conflict with Admin.

In the Grievance Forum...it should be examined if the moderation was more personally driven, or if it was truly an impartial moderation. I think this is a great idea.

I'd also suggest that if Admin knows they can't stand someone...that they recuse themselves from moderating that particular post.

I'd further add that married Admin not moderate posts that are reported on either of them....not that they can't do it impartially...but the perception will always be that they can't.

I feel that I'm on topic...as this is all part of the Respect rule. While it's true that Admin can do anything they feel like....If the intent of these rules is to have a community....then those that are enforcing the respect rule should have these guidelines for themselves....so that the people in the community don't feel like the rules are for some and not for others.

Unless of course, Mol says it's not necessary.:)

[SammieAnn]

Some people truly love it here...and just want to be heard and not thrown out with the trash because their personality may conflict with Admin.

In the Grievance Forum...it should be examined if the moderation was more personally driven, or if it was truly an impartial moderation. I think this is a great idea.

I'd also suggest that if Admin knows they can't stand someone...that they recuse themselves from moderating that particular post.

I'd further add that married Admin not moderate posts that are reported on either of them....not that they can't do it impartially...but the perception will always be that they can't.

I feel that I'm on topic...as this is all part of the Respect rule. While it's true that Admin can do anything they feel like....If the intent of these rules is to have a community....then those that are enforcing the respect rule should have these guidelines for themselves....so that the people in the community don't feel like the rules are for some and not for others.

Unless of course, Mol says it's not necessary.:)

I agree, I for one was not trying to start a fight or trying to be disrespectful. I had the same questions and concerns that you and bethra have.

[Kaylara]

*admin mode*
This is the last warning I am giving in this topic. You have been told that discussing the staffing issues you may have should be taken up with Mol and that that subject is off topic. Anyone continuing to discuss staffing issues will be disallowed from participating in this conversation further.

[coaxialkettle]

...got to pick up every stitch...
~must be the Season of the Witch~

[Semele]

Wow...this is like what the fifth time we have gone back and forth with rules vs. no rules? I find it interesting but oddly enough I am not affected by these new rules if and when they get put in place because of a fun little paragraph in my divorce decree stating that I will have access to this site and not be banned so long as I follow the rules in place at the time the paper was signed. LOL! Not that I plan on being wild. Not sure why I even said all this...just wanted to comment.

good luck admins. Hopefully this wont blow up as badly as the last attempts at micromanaging every possible occurence. Personally I would like to see the admins be able to participate again as just members who love this place as they once did. I have achieved something close to that finally.

[HetHert]

Wow...this is like what the fifth time we have gone back and forth with rules vs. no rules? I find it interesting but oddly enough I am not affected by these new rules if and when they get put in place because of a fun little paragraph in my divorce decree stating that I will have access to this site and not be banned so long as I follow the rules in place at the time the paper was signed. LOL! Not that I plan on being wild. Not sure why I even said all this...just wanted to comment.

good luck admins. Hopefully this wont blow up as badly as the last attempts at micromanaging every possible occurence. Personally I would like to see the admins be able to participate again as just members who love this place as they once did. I have achieved something close to that finally.

Because your naughty and you can! (not that there's anything wrong with being naughty)

[Twinkle]

Wow...this is like what the fifth time we have gone back and forth with rules vs. no rules? I find it interesting but oddly enough I am not affected by these new rules if and when they get put in place because of a fun little paragraph in my divorce decree stating that I will have access to this site and not be banned so long as I follow the rules in place at the time the paper was signed. LOL! Not that I plan on being wild. Not sure why I even said all this...just wanted to comment.

good luck admins. Hopefully this wont blow up as badly as the last attempts at micromanaging every possible occurence. Personally I would like to see the admins be able to participate again as just members who love this place as they once did. I have achieved something close to that finally.


Interesting post.

[covenofkeys]

yes, it is.....very interesting....

[Daniel]

Wow...this is like what the fifth time we have gone back and forth with rules vs. no rules? I find it interesting but oddly enough I am not affected by these new rules if and when they get put in place because of a fun little paragraph in my divorce decree stating that I will have access to this site and not be banned so long as I follow the rules in place at the time the paper was signed. LOL! Not that I plan on being wild. Not sure why I even said all this...just wanted to comment.

Hmm, so much for the same set of rules applying to everyone . . .

Just saying.

[Kaylara]

*admin mode* Per Mol*
This thread has turned away from just discussing the rules in the first post.

We have recieved enough feedback. We will review and the new rules will be implented as soon as possible.

Thread Closed.

[mol]

I am sorry about having to have this closed, but it was going WAY off topic. i wanted only the rules to be discussed. Admin guidelines were going to be discussed at a later time and, even though this isn't what this thread was about, I will still take your suggestions to heart when we compile that.

With that said, I am going to go through and work on the rules per the community suggestions that have been made and these shall be posted in the FAQ under our community rules.

It is still the Rule of Respect around here and no one is above it. It is just spelled out for all our sanity.

You can consider this draft 'in effect.' I will email everyone when they are revised and posted in the FAQ. When I post them in the FAQ I will also open up the grievance forum. Thanks to all of you who contributed actual suggestions for the rules. It is appreciated.