Forum rules of conduct

[David Franklin]

There hasn't been a change in policy, and in future the rules will be more widely applied. Naming and Shaming is not permitted on this forum, any post doing so (reported or noticed) will be deleted by a moderator or myself. Sorry, but I think you're playing with words here. It may be that Naming and Shaming is not permitted, but the fact is that up until now, that rule has only occasionally been enforced. If that is going to change, then it clearly is a change in policy.

I'll also point out that it's easy to say "Naming and Shaming" is against the rules, but I bet no 2 people on the forum agree about what it is. What about the threads on Simon Borland? Were they naming and shaming? What about the posts attacking various forumites from GaG? Or the posts about various A-list dancers being unfriendly?

Oh, and is there a forum code of conduct anywhere? I had a brief look and couldn't find one, and I have certainly had feedback from moderators saying they don't really know what the rules are.

[Trouble]

Sorry, but I think you're playing with words here. It may be that Naming and Shaming is not permitted, but the fact is that up until now, that rule has only occasionally been enforced. If that is going to change, then it clearly is a change in policy.

I'll also point out that it's easy to say "Naming and Shaming" is against the rules, but I bet no 2 people on the forum agree about what it is. What about the threads on Simon Borland? Were they naming and shaming? What about the posts attacking various forumites from GaG? Or the posts about various A-list dancers being unfriendly?

Oh, and is there a forum code of conduct anywhere? I had a brief look and couldn't find one, and I have certainly had feedback from moderators saying they don't really know what the rules are.

Franck i understand your stance completely but i would like to point out that infractions or infrictions what ever you call them should be given to somebody who clearly understands rule breaking and not to somebody who has never done anything like that or understood the rule had been broken. there was no warning via the PM.

And so that we all know as some of your moderators dont know either, what the hell does infraction mean and what does it do.

Could i also ask that if i do something your not happy with, unlike you have done with my sister, at least have the decency to tell me via the PM first.

[Franck]

Oh, and is there a forum code of conduct anywhere? I had a brief look and couldn't find one, and I have certainly had feedback from moderators saying they don't really know what the rules are.I don't have time just now to reply fully to your point, but I'm currently working with moderators on a set of rules and disclaimers to clarify the situation.

[Franck]

Franck i understand your stance completely but i would like to point out that infractions or infrictions what ever you call them should be given to somebody who clearly understands rule breaking and not to somebody who has never done anything like that or understood the rule had been broken. there was no warning via the PM.The infraction is the warning. When you receive the infraction, you receive a PM with an explanation and how many points your infraction was worth.

[Trouble]

The infraction is the warning. When you receive the infraction, you receive a PM with an explanation and how many points your infraction was worth.


but what does an infraction do. Double Trouble can not PM at the moment. Why is that. What does it mean Franck. Dont forget im new here and want to understand rules and regulations.

[Ghost]

Oh, and is there a forum code of conduct anywhere? I had a brief look and couldn't find one, and I have certainly had feedback from moderators saying they don't really know what the rules are.
From the Forum FAQ (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3458)


# Avoid personal references.
Unless you are directly responding or quoting someone, try not to post hearsay or gossip - it is likely that the person involved will hear about it, if not read it themselves.
# Try to keep it on-topic.
If something said in one post sparks a question or idea not relevant to the current discussion, it's better to create a new thread to discuss it: It keeps things tidy and you may attract folk to read it that were not involved on the source thread.
# Don't try sarcasm or dry witted humour.
At least until you are known on the forum. Or if you do, please point it out - not everyone will share your sense of humour.

[David Franklin]

From the Forum FAQ (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3458)So, shouldn't the forum FAQ be what you get when you click on the FAQ entry in the main menu? That's where I looked. (It sends you to www.cerocscotland.com/forum/faq.php, which doesn't seem to have anything relevant).

As for "personal references", one thing I'd like to clarify. Do people see a difference between

"Gus leads like a Gorilla" and "Craig Jeffries leads like a Gorilla"?

Would the answer change if Gus wasn't on the forum?

There seems to be somewhat of a belief that you can be nastier when referencing someone by their forum ID than by their real name, and that insults amongst forumites are somehow only 'virtual' insults that don't have any real effect. I would disagree with that, (and not only because my forum ID is my real name!) - in particular, when so many of us recognized by our forum name, it's hard to see how not mentioning your real name makes any difference.

[David Bailey]

So, shouldn't the forum FAQ be what you get when you click on the FAQ entry in the main menu? That's where I looked. (It sends you to www.cerocscotland.com/forum/faq.php, which doesn't seem to have anything relevant).
I agree - the FAQ link should ideally go to the Forum FAQ.

I'm sure it's on Franck's To Do list :)

[Lory]

Do people see a difference between

"Gus leads like a Gorilla" and "Craig Jeffries leads like a Gorilla"?



I see a difference in "Gus leads like a Gorilla" and "In my opinion Gus leads like a Gorilla"


Disclaimer, the above is not my personal opinion :innocent:

[Ghost]

So, shouldn't the forum FAQ be what you get when you click on the FAQ entry in the main menu? That's where I looked. (It sends you to www.cerocscotland.com/forum/faq.php, which doesn't seem to have anything relevant).

Well as Gadget and I are the only two people to actually read the thing.....
Perhaps an abridged version, or whatever Franck comes up with sent as a welcome pm to new members?


As for "personal references", one thing I'd like to clarify.
My own personal belief is that the FAQ "suggestions" are ignored left, right and centre :tears: .

[David Bailey]

Well as Gadget and I are the only two people to actually read the thing.....
Excuuuuse me, I helped out a bit too :tears:


My own personal belief is that the FAQ "suggestions" are ignored left, right and centre :tears: .
Any FAQ - hell, any documentation in general - is usually ignored. Until it's useful.
That doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

[Ghost]

Excuuuuse me, I helped out a bit too :tears:
Oh I didn't help write it, I just read it because I thought it might be useful :wink: . I was thinking of this (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=218661&postcount=55) post

[Gus]

I see a difference in "Gus leads like a Gorilla" and "In my opinion Gus leads like a Gorilla" .. and occaisionaly both comments have been correct. :wink:

I would love 'enforcement' of respect ... but I don't think it will work. There are always going to be individuals who think that they have the right to express their point regardless of the impact. Without dragging up history again, the posting of PMs, personal insults, calling people stupid etc is not good form. I've not seen evidence that Respect or good manners has been enforced to any great degree ... but far more focus on taking down SOME 'advertising', whereas a vast amount of other advertising still goes on. :confused:

[El Salsero Gringo]

I see a difference in "Gus leads like a Gorilla" and "In my opinion Gus leads like a Gorilla"I couldn't comment on the sentiment, but both statements are equivalent. (It's so obviously an opinion, that to say so is irredeemably pointless.)


.Without dragging up history again, the posting of PMs, personal insults, calling people stupid etc is not good form.I think I'd take the hypocrite that posted this a little more seriously if he actually took the trouble not to post personal insults in PMs. Or is he saying that it's fine to whisper in my ear that I "spread distrust, hate and pain" but not to say it out loud? Perhaps his nerve just fails him in public.

[Cruella]

I think I'd take the hypocrite that posted this a little more seriously if he actually took the trouble not to post personal insults in PMs. Or is he saying that it's fine to whisper in my ear that I "spread distrust, hate and pain" but not to say it out loud? Perhaps his nerve just fails him in public.
Or perhaps the insults are better said to one personally in private, rather than to do it in public?

[El Salsero Gringo]

Or perhaps the insults are better said to one personally in private, rather than to do it in public?I don't understand the meaning of the word 'better' in that context. Do you mean you don't want to read them? I agree. But when someone asks for "enforcement of respect" (whatever that means) let it at least be known that he means only in public, so his snidey little wormtongue PM's can continue to fly in private.

[WittyBird]

let it at least be known that he means only in public, so his snidey little wormtongue PM's can continue to fly in private.

:rofl: Di has just won her bet :rofl:

[Trousers]

so his snidey little wormtongue PM's can continue to fly in private.

Gosh! ESG nice rant but in my case it was snidey badly spelt little wormtongue PM's If the sum of my deuces is infact four.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Gosh! ESG nice rant but in my case it was snidey badly spelt little wormtongue PM's If the sum of my deuces is infact four.Oops - how do you spell it then? (And we could probably lose the apostrophe in "PM's" while were about it, too)

[David Bailey]

I've not seen evidence that Respect or good manners has been enforced to any great degree ... but far more focus on taking down SOME 'advertising', whereas a vast amount of other advertising still goes on. :confused:
Generally, if you see something that's advertising, then report it - that's what that exclamation mark icon is there for. (I know you know, Gus, but it's likely that many users don't)

There's nothing wrong with reporting a post - it helps the moderators catch this sort of thing as and when it exists. The moderators can't read everything all the time.

Does anyone have any other suggestions for topics to include in this "Rules of conduct" document?

[Cruella]

I think there should be a rule in place, to stop all the pedants picking out every-one's grammar mistakes!

How long before one is picked out on this post?

[David Bailey]

I think there should be a rule in place, to stop all the pedants picking out every-one's grammar mistakes!
OK, any other suggestions?
and that's "everyone's" without the hyphen. Oops

[Cruella]

OK, any other suggestions?
and that's "everyone's" without the hyphen. Oops

The spell checker told me to do it!!

[David Franklin]

Does anyone have any other suggestions for topics to include in this "Rules of conduct" document?Not a "rule of conduct", as such, but while we're thrashing out moderation policy...

I would prefer the moderation to be much more transparent. If a post is edited, moved, or deleted by a moderator, then that should be made obvious. The people whose posts are affected should be notified (if possible, obviously this isn't always going to be practical), and it should be made clear why the moderator intervened. If posts are to be moved "Outside", then it should be made clear in the original thread that this has happened. By default, the Outside part of the forum doesn't appear on many searches, so currently, if you're on a thread and some posts disappear, you've got to know to look at the Outside section to see if they've been moved there. Not good.

There are two reasons for making the moderation less secretive:

(1) If people don't know what gets moderated, they don't know how to behave. On one of the more strictly moderated forums I'm on, unacceptable posts are deleted, with a reason (e.g. "Deleted by Rob. Reason: swearing"). The way this has evolved is that many violations don't even get as far as the moderators - forumites will tell someone "You'd better delete that swear word before the mods see it". In general, it seems to work pretty well (and that forum has 10x the banter and jokes on it than this one does - so it doesn't kill the atmosphere).

(2) It's one thing if certain views, actions or attacks are, for want of a better word, censored. It's quite another when you don't even know that that's what is happening. The idea that posts can simply disappear, with no evidence that they ever existed bothers me.

For example, if you look at the thread that spawned this discussion, you would not even know what had happened if Lory hadn't specifically decided to add a post explaining things. Going back further, I wanted to see what GaG had been allowed to post, but the relevant posts seem to have been deleted, and there is no evidence that GetAGrip ever existed (other than Google's cache, that is). [Of course, the forum's brain-dead search engine may also be at fault].

And of course, there's the worry of out-and-out censorship. Posts criticising Ceroc being deleted, people with opinions differing from Franck having their posts disappear etc. I am not for a moment saying this has happened but the problem is that if it did, how would we know about it? Now obviously Franck could still make invisible edits regardless of the rules, but I think it would be better if doing so was at least officially against policy.

[El Salsero Gringo]

{snip}I completely agree.

[Caro]

The infraction is the warning. When you receive the infraction, you receive a PM with an explanation and how many points your infraction was worth.

Can I just ask what's an infraction, i.e. when do you receive one and what are the consequences? :flower:

[ducasi]

Can I just ask what's an infraction, i.e. when do you receive one and what are the consequences? :flower:
They are like moderator-only negative reps. I don't know the policy or how they are implemented on this forum, but they can take away temporarily the ability to do things such as post or send PMs.

[ducasi]

I would prefer the moderation to be much more transparent.
:yeah:

[David Bailey]

OK, we now have a Forum Disclaimer (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/disclaimer.php) - it's in the "Disclaimer" link at the bottom of each page.

We'll add in links to other documents to that area as we do them - such as the FAQ and related documents. All suggestions welcomed, of course.

[spindr]

Hmmm, does it need to be dated? Or is it applied retrospectively?

"specified above" doesn't seem terribly clear -- since it's in the first sentence?

SpinDr