PDA

View Full Version : Forum Rules



Ghost
27th-November-2006, 04:43 PM
Regarding copyright. What's the policy regarding avatar images?

stewart38
27th-November-2006, 04:48 PM
Is it a sad day for the forum that these have come about ? :sad:

Cant post without 'agreeing' to them

Beowulf
27th-November-2006, 04:51 PM
No I think they are reasonable.. as a member of a couple of other forums (and owner / moderator myself of another) the rules are actually very reasonable.

Trust me, Franck and co are actually being quite lenient compared to some other sites out there where the rules are stricter and the moderators much more heavy handed.

Gav
27th-November-2006, 04:51 PM
Regarding copyright. What's the policy regarding avatar images?

Good point, I can't remember where I stole mine from. :innocent:

TheTramp
27th-November-2006, 04:53 PM
Is it a sad day for the forum that these have come about ? :sad:

Cant post without 'agreeing' to them

Personally, I think that it's the wrong thing to do.

The forum has survived for the last 5(?) years, without infractions, forum rules, split threads for off topic discussions etc. With some times that are maybe best forgotten on the way, admittedly, but generally, in a fairly acceptable way.

There goes the 'pub conversation' analogy. I've not seen any pubs that require the signing of a form before you can go into them to talk.

Franck
27th-November-2006, 04:54 PM
Regarding copyright. What's the policy regarding avatar images?I'm not going to check the provenance of every avatar or photo uploaded but if I receive any requests to remove due to copyright issues, I would have to comply if the image was not free of copyright or used with permission.

Gav
27th-November-2006, 04:56 PM
I don't necessarily object to them, but what I do find a little objectionable is that people who have already paid their money may not want to sign up to these rules.

Lynn
27th-November-2006, 04:58 PM
I think people have had quite a while to set the tone of the forum by their own behaviour and its crossed the line just too many times - hence the need for this action now.

stewart38
27th-November-2006, 04:59 PM
Personally, I think that it's the wrong thing to do.

The forum has survived for the last 5(?) years, without infractions, forum rules, split threads for off topic discussions etc. With some times that are maybe best forgotten on the way, admittedly, but generally, in a fairly acceptable way.

There goes the 'pub conversation' analogy. I've not seen any pubs that require the signing of a form before you can go into them to talk.

Have to agree i see it as sad day (I see the thread its self isnt in a the main chit chat thread but hidden under a 'technical thread') ?

If your really insulted PM them or ask Franc/Moderator to remove and/or have a word

Now we are going to have infractions and people asking who reported me who said what etc

Franck
27th-November-2006, 04:59 PM
The forum has survived for the last 5(?) years, without infractions, forum rules, split threads for off topic discussions etc. With some times that are maybe best forgotten on the way, admittedly, but generally, in a fairly acceptable way.The forum always had split threads, off topic corrections and warnings, at the time, myself (and later on Emma & Sheena) could manage it all easily.
As the forum has grown hugely, 2 or 3 moderators couldn't handle the load, so more have been recruited, the more of us there are, the clearer the rules and warnings need to be.
I always wanted to have clear rules to refer to, just never had the time to create them.

There goes the 'pub conversation' analogy. I've not seen any pubs that require the signing of a form before you can go into them to talk.The Ceroc Scotland Forum was always a 'Members Only' pub, with the right to kick out anyone who didn't play by the rules. Again no real change there, just a clarification of what the rules are.

Paul F
27th-November-2006, 05:01 PM
I dont really mind there being stated rules or not.

I do like the idea of keeping threads 'on topic' though. So many end up going down the same path.
Must be tricky to moderate though.

Franck
27th-November-2006, 05:02 PM
I don't necessarily object to them, but what I do find a little objectionable is that people who have already paid their money may not want to sign up to these rules.Well, as I've already posted, the rules are just a clarification (in writing) of existing rules.
Of course if any Silver member wasn't happy with the new rules to the point where they refused to be part of the Forum, I would be happy to arrange a refund (pro rata) of their Silver Membership fee.

Stuart M
27th-November-2006, 05:05 PM
Must say the banning of bumping threads seems heavy-handed, not to say a can of worms. I can think of good reasons for bumping a thread, and most of the malevolent ones are covered by other rules (commerciality, name-dropping, rudeness etc.

Is responding to a joke at the end of a thread, four days after the last post, bumping?
Is linking a new news story to an interesting debate bumping, if it happens a week after the last post? How about a week and a day?
What about a poll?

stewart38
27th-November-2006, 05:05 PM
I dont really mind there being stated rules or not.

I do like the idea of keeping threads 'on topic' though. So many end up going down the same path.
Must be tricky to moderate though.

What so if i joke now about do you mean talking about sheep ,id have broken a rule and now get a infraction ??

It was part of the fun sometimes in the past to go off topic :sad:

Franck
27th-November-2006, 05:10 PM
Must say the banning of bumping threads seems heavy-handed, not to say a can of worms. I can think of good reasons for bumping a thread, and most of the malevolent ones are covered by other rules (commerciality, name-dropping, rudeness etc.

Is responding to a joke at the end of a thread, four days after the last post, bumping?
Is linking a new news story to an interesting debate bumping, if it happens a week after the last post? How about a week and a day?
What about a poll?
Well the bumping part of the rule states:

7. Participants may not bump threads. Bumping can refer to posting useless information, making corrections or updates in a new post, posting one-liners or any other action to deliberately keep a thread hot or to bring it to the top of its forum. Moderators will use their discretion, depending on the nature of the post, as to whether to take action or not.

None of the example you mention would fall into the 'bumping' rule as stated above because of the 'To deliberately keep a thread hot or to bring it to the top'. Bringing a thread back to life with new information / joke or a vote on a poll is not bumping.
In other borderline cases the moderators' discretion would apply.

David Bailey
27th-November-2006, 05:15 PM
What so if i joke now about do you mean talking about sheep ,id have broken a rule and now get a infraction ??
Even I wouldn't go that far. :)


It was part of the fun sometimes in the past to go off topic :sad:
"When to split a thread" is a very difficult judgement call.

It depends on a number of factors including the thread topic, the forum area it's in, whether a valid "new thread" can be created, how many off-topic posts have been added to the thread, and how many people have also contributed to the new topic.

Some threads in "Banter" areas are obviously permanently off-topic - I can't imagine even trying to split the Singleton's Sofa.

However, some "information-rich" threads are much more likely to be pruned if they wander off topic (I'll be keeping a close eye on the "Learning Tango" thread :wink: ).

My feeling is that it's much better, more positive and less intrusive, to split a thread than it would be to delete a set of off-topic posts within that thread.

stewart38
27th-November-2006, 05:18 PM
Having just the new Forum Rules I'd now go with not needing a Boiler Room.

Here's to the future :cheers:

Infractions and forum rules it does see accademic :sad:

Ghost
27th-November-2006, 05:19 PM
Well the bumping part of the rule states:

7. Participants may not bump threads. Bumping can refer to posting useless information, making corrections or updates in a new post, posting one-liners or any other action to deliberately keep a thread hot or to bring it to the top of its forum. Moderators will use their discretion, depending on the nature of the post, as to whether to take action or not.

None of the example you mention would fall into the 'bumping' rule as stated above because of the 'To deliberately keep a thread hot or to bring it to the top'. Bringing a thread back to life with new information / joke or a vote on a poll is not bumping.
In other borderline cases the moderators' discretion would apply.

Something I was toying with based on David James concept of sharing old threads that were useful and Beowulf's ressurecting a thread a while back was ressurecting old technical threads I found useful while trawling to see
a) if those who'd originally posted had changed their minds, had new concepts etc
b) what the members who weren't round when it started had to say.

I only really had technical dance threads in mind. Is this "bumping"?

straycat
27th-November-2006, 05:22 PM
In response to various gripes,
The way I see it...

This is Franck's forum. He's devoted a whole lot of time, effort and resources into making this forum what it is. And he's kindly extended us the privilege of using this forum.

If he feels a need to provide this set of rules, to help keep the forum running in the spirit which he intends, that's up to him. We're all different, and he can't make things to suit all of us - but as the guy who's done such a great job of running the forum for so long, if he reckons a change of any kind is needed, I can't think of any reason not to trust his judgement.

At the end of the day, he has every right to do what he likes with his forum, and we have every right to choose not to use it if we don't like his decisions. The fact that he's devoted so much time and effort to make it suit as many of us as possible is not something to be overlooked (and I'd be surprised if the subscription fees even came close to covering this)

In a nutshell,
Franck's forum.
Franck's rules.
And a huge Thank You to Franck for all his efforts.

LMC
27th-November-2006, 05:26 PM
Big :yeah:

Teensy thing: could Forum Rules be made visible to non-members too please? I read this thread without logging on and thought "Where are they :confused: ?" - and obv. immediately spotted 'em when I did log on.

If by registering, you indicate that you will abide by the rules, it's only fair to understand what the rules are :)

EDIT: oh, and maybe change the "By registering &c &c bit to include the 'Franck's forum, Franck's rules, resistance is futile' :wink:

Franck
27th-November-2006, 05:27 PM
Something I was toying with based on David James concept of sharing old threads that were useful and Beowulf's ressurecting a thread a while back was ressurecting old technical threads I found useful while trawling to see
a) if those who'd originally posted had changed their minds, had new concepts etc
b) what the members who weren't round when it started had to say.

I only really had technical dance threads in mind. Is this "bumping"?Bumping is mostly in the 'intention' of the bumper rather than the actual resurrecting of aging threads. In your example, your motives would be to bring an interesting topic up for discussion. In that case you have the option to start a new thread or use an old one. Again, moderators' discretion will apply.

David Bailey
27th-November-2006, 05:30 PM
I only really had technical dance threads in mind. Is this "bumping"?
Nope - typically, it's "bumping as disguised advertising" that's the problem.

Honestly, I don't think this is a big deal, we're not going to go round all the time as the Bump Police or something. But occasionally, yes, you see threads mysteriously re-appear, with no new information in them, so we reserve the right to take moderation action if required.

I'm a big fan of thread recycling - e.g. it'd be nice in the "Birthday" threads - as this is a great way of preserving and promoting information. Again, recycling is not bumping, and please feel free to recycle as and when appropriate.


In a nutshell,
Franck's forum.
Franck's rules.
And a huge Thank You Franck for all his efforts.
What's "My gaff, my rules" in French? :innocent:

LMC
27th-November-2006, 05:32 PM
But occasionally, yes, you see threads mysteriously re-appear, with no new information in them, so we reserve the right to take moderation action if required.
Hmmm, tricky if someone is "recycling" polls and just ticks a box without posting a comment?

stewart38
27th-November-2006, 05:33 PM
In response to various gripes,
The way I see it...

This is Franck's forum. He's devoted a whole lot of time, effort and resources into making this forum what it is. And he's kindly extended us the privilege of using this forum.

If he feels a need to provide this set of rules, to help keep the forum running in the spirit which he intends, that's up to him. We're all different, and he can't make things to suit all of us - but as the guy who's done such a great job of running the forum for so long, if he reckons a change of any kind is needed, I can't think of any reason not to trust his judgement.

At the end of the day, he has every right to do what he likes with his forum, and we have every right to choose not to use it if we don't like his decisions. The fact that he's devoted so much time and effort to make it suit as many of us as possible is not something to be overlooked (and I'd be surprised if the subscription fees even came close to covering this)

In a nutshell,
Franck's forum.
Franck's rules.
And a huge Thank You Franck for all his efforts.

I dont think there gripes just clarifcation and people are entitled to their opinions. clearly there has always been a set of unwritten rules and time will tell. from a reading they look onerous but that maybe wrong

It would be a sad day if we had a situation like when a certain individual made a complaint at a weekender and the response was 'there is the exit you know how to use it' :sad:

ceroc i assume subsidise this forum ?

TheTramp
27th-November-2006, 05:34 PM
In a nutshell,
Franck's forum.
Franck's rules.
And a huge Thank You to Franck for all his efforts.

I wouldn't disagree with this in any way at all.

That doesn't necessarily mean that everything the he does is right. And there have been instances in the past, where he's done something, people have posted about it, and it's been reversed, or otherwise altered.

When I said that I think that it's the wrong thing to do, I've said it because I believe that it is. No big fuss. Franck can agree, or disagree, or whatever.

In no way posting what I did should be taken to mean anything other than that. And I know that Franck wouldn't have. I've disagreed with him before. He'll get it right all the time eventually (with more training).

David Bailey
27th-November-2006, 05:35 PM
Infractions and forum rules it does see accademic :sad:
Yeah, we're all power-crazed fools who like nothing more than infracting and banning members to start off a day. :rolleyes:

Come on people, keep a sense of perspective OK? None of us moderators (no, not even me) likes giving out warnings and infractions; we think carefully on each one, and usually discuss them. I personally would much rather not have to do too much moderation.

But the job of moderators is to moderate - and anyone who's been a member of another forum should realise that this state of affairs is normal.

P.S. I moved these posts to this thread as it seemed more appropriate.

Stuart M
27th-November-2006, 05:40 PM
Bumping is mostly in the 'intention' of the bumper rather than the actual resurrecting of aging threads. In your example, your motives would be to bring an interesting topic up for discussion. In that case you have the option to start a new thread or use an old one. Again, moderators' discretion will apply.

Fair enough - I've been used to the term "bumping" as being a general one, not specifically referring to malevolent resurrection of threads. Since I looked at the term that way, the opening sentence of the rule - "Participants may not bump threads" - got up my nose a bit.

Personally I don't think enough threads get bumped (in the general sense of the term) here - too many good ones die before their time.

David Bailey
27th-November-2006, 05:43 PM
That doesn't necessarily mean that everything the he does is right. And there have been instances in the past, where he's done something, people have posted about it, and it's been reversed, or otherwise altered.
I think we'd all appreciate some constructive suggestions as to the wording, structure and content of the Forum Rules.

I'm still waiting for the first one of those suggestion on this thread, however...


It would be a sad day if we had a situation like when a certain individual made a complaint at a weekender and the response was 'there is the exit you know how to use it' :sad:
It would indeed, but come on - what on Earth gives you the impression that "opinions would be suppressed"? :rolleyes:

For example, look at my (and other) numerous rants about the DJ staffing policy on CJ's thread; not exactly a Ceroc of Nine broadcast is it? :whistle:


ceroc i assume subsidise this forum ?
Franck pays for it, I believe - I don't think Ceroc HQ pays for it at all.

straycat
27th-November-2006, 05:46 PM
Personally I don't think enough threads get bumped (in the general sense of the term) here - too many good ones die before their time.

As with people, romances, bands, movies, dance venues, endangered species, and cars. Yet again the forum shows an almost poetic ability to mirror life in the outside world.

I think I've had too much coffee today. :blush:

Dreadful Scathe
27th-November-2006, 05:58 PM
ooh rules



Our goal will be to treat our members as we would wish to be treated.

Other than these rules, we have no way of knowing how the moderators wish to be treated. Ive heard er...things...about DavidJames tastes.


Please think before you post and re-read what you type before you post it.

really? i'll never manage that!!


Keep your comments limited to the debate at hand

oh dear....I'll get me coat.


in an atmosphere of mutual respect

as long as its just an "atmosphere" we are aiming for, it may be attainable :)




3. You may not post adverts on the forum. Events & classes can be discussed and links supplied as a reply to a specific request, provided the requests are not artificially manufactured by organisers or friends. Any 'reviews' posted by organisers or crew will also be deemed to be advertising and removed at the discretion of the Ceroc Scotland Forum team.

To be serious for a second, I hope this is not going to be taken too literally. Posts discussing a good event without bias should be allowed even if it IS from crew - I can understand blatant advert placing but a thread asking who is going to something has to be expected if we are going to have any sort of decent "dance community forum". We are all members of this same dance community. My suggestion would be to leave "possible" adverts for a time to see if there is actual general interest, if its not unwelcome by the people using the forum - why would it be removed?


in an attempt to defeat any censors put in place by the Ceroc Scotland Forum.

does this include ***** and the like ? not that i would really use that - bo11ox maybe :)


Bumping can refer to posting useless information,

when I do this, I'm usually trying to be funny :)


Any posts that encourage illegal intent will be removed and the account disabled.

allofmp3.com is NOT illegal and should be encouraged. Until it turns out it is illegal. :)


Hijacking threads (getting far off topic) for the purpose of discussing a lifestyle issue, religious issue, discussing someone's sexual preference, or bashing another member is strictly prohibited.

In the past this has been a natural progression and wandering threads have ended up being split by the moderators into a new thread. Are the moderators no longer going to split threads?


Flame baiting is not allowed. What is 'flame baiting'? It means posting a topic or something with the intention of triggering a flame war, or one that invites flames in reply. It's equivalent to inviting someone to troll.

hmm I thought flamebaiting was the very definition of "troll" ?


Any attempts to defraud or deceive our members may result in your account being suspended.

Bang goes April Fools day :( And farewell to Tramps EXTREMELY DECEITFUL beginner dancer claims. Farewell Trampy, we will have a minutes silence tomorrow.


I note no mention of "Agony Smurf" becoming the official question and answer area. A mere oversite Im sure.

Lou
27th-November-2006, 06:00 PM
poking head briefly over the parapit to brave posting - as I have to admit that since this heavy moderation policy, I don't feel at all comfortable or welcome here anymore...


Upon registration members are asked for a username to identify themselves to others in the community when they post. This may be your real name or any screen name you may choose but should not contain profanity or be a derivative of a business name or otherwise in violation of out Terms & Conditions. However, any username deemed inappropriate by the administrator may be removed and a change of username effected.
So what's going to happen to Ceroc™ (business name) Jock (sometimes used as a derogatory term for Scots) now? ;)

Also - surely bumping can be a good thing? :confused: Or do we now encourage the starting of millions of new threads? What would be better is if all polls had an expiry date - the only times I get annoyed by "bumping" is when someone's voted on an ancient poll without adding anything.


I think we'd all appreciate some constructive suggestions as to the wording, structure and content of the Forum Rules.
Ach - a moot point, David. Surely, if that was the intention, then there would've been some review before we had to sign our souls away to be able to post?

....goes back to lurking in relative safety.

straycat
27th-November-2006, 06:06 PM
What's "My gaff, my rules" in French? :innocent:

'mon gaff, mes regles', according to the local translation service (aka Mac Mini), why? :whistle:

David Bailey
27th-November-2006, 06:07 PM
poking head briefly over the parapit to brave posting - as I have to admit that since this heavy moderation policy, I don't feel at all comfortable or welcome here anymore...
I still love you, although obviously in a platonic way, me being heterosexual and all.


Also - surely bumping can be a good thing? :confused: Or do we now encourage the starting of millions of new threads? What would be better is if all polls had an expiry date - the only times I get annoyed by "bumping" is when someone's voted on an ancient poll without adding anything.
Look, I repeat, we're not going to be Bump Fascists, OK? You're all worrying way too much about this one thing.


Ach - a moot point, David. Surely, if that was the intention, then there would've been some review before we had to sign our souls away to be able to post?
This is the best way to bring it to people's attention. We did a "low-profile release" with the Forum Disclaimer - which said a similar sort of thing but was far more draconian, I know as I wrote it - and people have just ignored it.

The rules are not set in stone, and I'm sure any sensible suggestions and contributions will be considered.

Franck
27th-November-2006, 06:13 PM
So what's going to happen to Ceroc™ (business name) Jock (sometimes used as a derogatory term for Scots) now? ;) User names will be reviewed on an ad-hoc basis if a problem is perceived with allowances made for long-term users.

Ach - a moot point, David. Surely, if that was the intention, then there would've been some review before we had to sign our souls away to be able to post?That was just me being too efficient, I didn't mean to activate the rules acceptance part immediately, meant to wait until we'd discussed them a bit first!

As DavidJames said, the forum rules document will evolve with the mood of the forum and the needs created as we grow. The current aim is to clarify the rules for everyone and to make the job of moderators easier as well as all their decisions more consistent.

Lory
27th-November-2006, 06:26 PM
Please be assured, the rules are merely a guideline for us all to work towards and not an automated service.. they can only be enforced by one of us moderators and we're not all together without reason and compassionate judgement!

A couple of us even posses a sense of humour! :D

Lou
27th-November-2006, 06:33 PM
A couple of us even posses a sense of humour! :D
Meh! You expect me to believe that, after DavidJames' post above? :rolleyes:

TheTramp
27th-November-2006, 06:34 PM
A couple of us even posses a sense of humour! :D

Which 2 is that then Lory? :rolleyes:

Incidentally, in a phone call with the Great One* just now, we've decided on one further update to the rules.

Anyone referring to him, shall use the title "Great One". Effective immediately!





*Franck. The Great One.

ducasi
27th-November-2006, 06:35 PM
Meh! You expect me to believe that, after DavidJames' post above? :rolleyes:
I think she meant her & me. :D

Thanks Lory. :flower:

Cruella
27th-November-2006, 07:18 PM
I predict alot of 'Characters' disappearing from this forum now. I already know of 3 that have told me they are leaving. It seems a shame as it has been so much fun for me on here and to be honest without all the banter I don't think i'd find it so entertaining. Some of us only come on for that reason and not to talk about the serious issues. Only time will tell i guess, as its 'The Great One's' Forum it's up to him how it is run.

Franck
27th-November-2006, 07:28 PM
I predict alot of 'Characters' disappearing from this forum now. I already know of 3 that have told me they are leaving. It seems a shame as it has been so much fun for me on here and to be honest without all the banter I don't think i'd find it so entertaining. Some of us only come on for that reason and not to talk about the serious issues. Only time will tell i guess, as its 'The Great One's' Forum it's up to him how it is run.I don't see anything in the rules that would stop banter and as Lory said, moderators and myself will be using our judgement.
Any established 'Character' worried about the forum rules would only have to worry if they were planning to change their behaviour significantly. Nothing is new, the only difference is the rules are there for all to see. So if I hadn't implemented the forum rules today, those posters would still have received infractions but might not have been sure why.

Genie
27th-November-2006, 07:33 PM
User names will be reviewed on an ad-hoc basis if a problem is perceived with allowances made for long-term users.

So do I have to change username on account of not actually being blue and having the voice of Robin Williams? :p

I read and agreed to the new forum rules. I don't see any real problem with them, as long as the Moderators don't go O.T.T. all of a sudden.

Cruella
27th-November-2006, 07:39 PM
I don't see anything in the rules that would stop banter and as Lory said, moderators and myself will be using our judgement.
Any established 'Character' worried about the forum rules would only have to worry if they were planning to change their behaviour significantly. Nothing is new, the only difference is the rules are there for all to see. So if I hadn't implemented the forum rules today, those posters would still have received infractions but might not have been sure why.

I understand that, but it just feels like 'Big Brother is watching you' now it has been put into an agreement that you need to tick before you can post. :rolleyes:

David Bailey
27th-November-2006, 07:50 PM
I predict alot of 'Characters' disappearing from this forum now. I already know of 3 that have told me they are leaving.
I dunno if you've noticed but "Characters" have been leaving the forum for a while now.

Despite what people may say or think, we're actually trying to improve the general atmosphere of the forum to make it more welcoming, to encourage some of the silent majority of posters who might otherwise be intimidated. So hopefully new "Characters" will emerge, or others will return.


It seems a shame as it has been so much fun for me on here and to be honest without all the banter I don't think i'd find it so entertaining. Some of us only come on for that reason and not to talk about the serious issues. Only time will tell i guess, as its 'The Great One's' Forum it's up to him how it is run.
No one, and I mean no one, wants to stop banter. No, not even on the "learning Tango" thread.

What? Really, where on Earth did you read a "we don't allow banter" clause? I'd love to know - if it's there, I for one want it removed. In fact, if it were up to me, I'd make banter mandatory. :)

But moderation is what moderators do - it's a perfectly normal and standard role in most forums. In fact, here's a definition of a forum moderator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_moderator). I'd recommend people read it.


Meh! You expect me to believe that, after DavidJames' post above? :rolleyes:
All the moderators are now frantically wondering which one other moderator has a sense of humour.

Well except me, I know I don't. There's some comfort in certainty.

Andy McGregor
27th-November-2006, 08:02 PM
poking head briefly over the parapit to brave posting - as I have to admit that since this heavy moderation policy, I don't feel at all comfortable or welcome here anymore...:yeah:

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. On second thoughts, I'm not glad anybody feels like this :tears:

I used to love posting on here. I've had a few ups and downs but I've also had a lot of laughs. Now it feels like the accountants have taken over the company :tears:

If this policy continues as it is the Forum will be populated by whingers and morons - because you will receive infractions if you criticise them:mad:

It is my prediction that the heavy-handed moderation which disallows criticism will result in a luvved-up Forum where nothing is said of any substance and where no debate happens in case some moderator might think you're being critical of somebody new. This is illustrated by a message I received from a formerly regular contributor to the Forum: here's a small part of it

"I got fed up of trying to either find any advice on dancing of any quality amongst the quippy one liners and luvvy "it was great to dance with you too" stuff or trying to talk about technique in dance without someone jumping up and down telling me that dancing was all about fun. "

I can't post any of the rest because it was criticising woodface and he's the moderators new favourite pet while I'm their latest whipping boy.

I think that one of the things that comes with experience is to know your place. And the new changes to the forum and recent actions and postings by David James are making me feel more and more strongly that this is not it.

Lory
27th-November-2006, 08:26 PM
It is my prediction that the heavy-handed moderation which disallows criticism will result in a luvved-up Forum where nothing is said of any substance and where no debate happens in case some moderator might think you're being critical of somebody new. This is illustrated by a message I received from a formerly regular contributor to the Forum: here's a small part of it


"I got fed up of trying to either find any advice on dancing of any quality amongst the quippy one liners and luvvy "it was great to dance with you too" stuff or trying to talk about technique in dance without someone jumping up and down telling me that dancing was all about fun. "

It sounds to me, as though your friend is a perfect candidate for someone who's going to benefit from us trying to keep threads on topic and keeping the friendly banter, luvvyism and social chit-chat apart from the technical stuff.

Our aim is to have a Forum where, if you want to talk technique, you can, freely, without someone telling you, your being boring!

And if you want to Chat about having sex on the balcony at Ashtons, that's fine too, just don't post in the tech thread! :wink: :yeah:

MartinHarper
27th-November-2006, 08:34 PM
There is a huge problem with the forum rules that I feel has been overlooked.

Blue on Orange? What were you thinking?

TheTramp
27th-November-2006, 08:41 PM
There is a huge problem with the forum rules that I feel has been overlooked.

Blue on Orange? What were you thinking?

Switch to a decent colour scheme, and it doesn't look anything like that!! :yum:

Juju
27th-November-2006, 08:57 PM
Blue on Orange? What were you thinking?

Still better than "Ceroc Orange" and black. Trinny and Susannah were so right.

Andy McGregor
27th-November-2006, 09:12 PM
It sounds to me, as though your friend is a perfect candidate for someone who's going to benefit from us trying to keep threads on topic and keeping the friendly banter, luvvyism and social chit-chat apart from the technical stuff.

Our aim is to have a Forum where, if you want to talk technique, you can, freely, without someone telling you, your being boring!Unfortunately, you can't tell someone when they're talking bad technique. And that is what is bugging me most. This is a DANCE forum. In Scotland Ceroc is actually danced and that dance is of a high quality. I would expect that low quality dance advice on the Scottish Ceroc Forum would be deleted. But no, criticise bad dance advice and you get infracted.

Daydreaming Diva
27th-November-2006, 09:18 PM
In response to various gripes,
The way I see it...

This is Franck's forum. He's devoted a whole lot of time, effort and resources into making this forum what it is. And he's kindly extended us the privilege of using this forum.

In a nutshell,
Franck's forum.
Franck's rules.
And a huge Thank You to Franck for all his efforts.

At the risk of sounding like a goodie, goodie I must say that I totally agree with everything in this post. :blush:

I've just read the rules document, and am quite surprised that anyone could take exception to anything in them. They seem quite clear and more than fair to me. Indeed, they just seem to reflect common decency and politeness. But, even if there were the odd unpalatable one, I would still agree that if that is what Franck wants, then its up to him.

On the positive side, there is now a document which defines best practice - there could however, be a down side for those who worry that they are not masters of linguistics as they may be put off posting for fear that their point may be misconstrued as offensive, or their words may inadvertantly break some rule or other. I don't think I'm putting this very well ..... which is the point I'm trying to make.

I'd just like to add that for ME the forum has brought a new dimension to dancing as a social activity. As a lady who mostly goes to dances and weekenders on her own, it has made me feel far less alone. So thank you Franck. :respect: A highlight of my year was the trip that Tessa and I made to Scotland which would never have happened had it not been for YOUR Forum.:respect: :respect: :clap: :clap: (Trust I didn't stray from the point :innocent: )

Lynn
27th-November-2006, 09:29 PM
I predict alot of 'Characters' disappearing from this forum now. I already know of 3 that have told me they are leaving. Not much of 'characters' if they can't even post and say goodbye.

There are others who have left because they didn't like the way things were on the forum. At times they've been mocked for doing that and accused of going off in a huff.

Not saying these 'characters' are doing that but they certainly aren't giving the 'change' (which isn't really a change and won't affect people much unless they are habitually rude and unpleasant) much of go - not even one day and they're giving up already?

Twirly
27th-November-2006, 10:01 PM
User names will be reviewed on an ad-hoc basis if a problem is perceived with allowances made for long-term users.

I know that we often refer to forum addiction Frank, but there's no need to rub it in! :wink:


At the risk of sounding like a goodie, goodie I must say that I totally agree with everything in this post. :blush:

I've just read the rules document, and am quite surprised that anyone could take exception to anything in them. They seem quite clear and more than fair to me. Indeed, they just seem to reflect common decency and politeness. But, even if there were the odd unpalatable one, I would still agree that if that is what Franck wants, then its up to him.

On the positive side, there is now a document which defines best practice - there could however, be a down side for those who worry that they are not masters of linguistics as they may be put off posting for fear that their point may be misconstrued as offensive, or their words may inadvertantly break some rule or other. I don't think I'm putting this very well ..... which is the point I'm trying to make.

:yeah: I think you put it very well.

Can't anyone hear that Frank is just saying that nothing has changed - it's all the same as before, they've just decided to be fair and tell us what they're doing rather than imposing it without our prior knowledge? Why are people so upset at being told to be polite to other forumites? :confused:

As Diva says, I too have gained hugely from this forum, and for that I'm thankful. There's plenty of room on here for debate, arguement and loveyness too - just let people be what they want to be.

Am sure this is all a storm in a teacup...

Andy McGregor
27th-November-2006, 10:32 PM
Not saying these 'characters' are doing that but they certainly aren't giving the 'change' (which isn't really a change and won't affect people much unless they are habitually rude and unpleasant) much of go - not even one day and they're giving up already?What a day that was! Two infraction points and told off by headmaster David James. With a bit of luck I'll be getting six of the best from Lory by the end of the week:eek:

Twirly
27th-November-2006, 10:34 PM
What a day that was! Two infraction points and told off by headmaster David James. With a bit of luck I'll be getting six of the best from Lory by the end of the week:eek:

Well I suggest you get thee to the dungeon in that case! :devil:

Lou
27th-November-2006, 11:21 PM
Why are people so upset at being told to be polite to other forumites? :confused:
Because, before, it was all based on trust. I didn't need Franck to tell me "Mi casa, su casa", I knew and behaved accordingly.

I liked this forum, because Franck ran it wisely, and was wonderfully welcoming to people who danced at organisations other than Ceroc™. In the meantime, other fora fell by the wayside because of overactive moderation.

I'm miffed, because it seems that some idiots have spoiled it for the rest of us. The trust has gone & this has become somewhat of a "nanny state". (In my opinion, that is). And everything has been reduced to the lowest common denominator where (for instance) whitterings about what a scaffolder is doing on the M25 are viewed as more acceptable than passionate talk about dancing and Ceroc™ policy. I, for one, will miss the characters and more intelligent banter - even if things got a little heated at times. Ymmv, natch. :flower:

Andy McGregor
27th-November-2006, 11:55 PM
Well I suggest you get thee to the dungeon in that case! :devil:Are there thpiders, mythstress?
I loves thpiders:flower:

Andy McGregor
27th-November-2006, 11:58 PM
I, for one, will miss the characters and more intelligent banter - even if things got a little heated at times. Ymmv, natch. :flower:If all the clever people go, can I be called brains?*

*In a world of the blind a one eyed man is King**:innocent:

** Or maybe King Sexy...

JonD
28th-November-2006, 12:01 AM
I think the rules are fine - they seem sensible and clear. I can't see how they are going to have the effect of "ruining" the forum by changing it's character. They are clearly intended to preserve that character.


I'm miffed, because it seems that some idiots have spoiled it for the rest of us.
I don't think they've turned it into a "nanny state". A situation has arisen where it makes sense to clarify what is acceptable. Everyone has different perspectives on what is acceptable but it's Franck's forum and it's his perspective that counts. All he's done is make that perspective clear to everyone to prevent any future misunderstandings. I'm no fan of "school prefects" telling me how to think, and I'll challenge them if they try, but I can see no suggestion of that here. Franck has shown considerable courage by granting the moderators freedom to interpret the rules and the right to express their personal opinions in their own posts. That means there are going to be misunderstandings and mistakes as the rules and methods of dealing with issues are defined by experience; if anyone has got a problem with a decision that is communicated privately it seems polite to try and sort it out privately with the moderator concerned or Franck himself. In my opinion, "school villains" who trumpet about their punishments are every bit as tedious as "school prefects".


I, for one, will miss the characters and more intelligent banter - even if things got a little heated at times.
I'm quite sure that there are sufficient characters with enough intelligence and wit to continue both the banter and the interesting, dance focussed posts. If a few people drift off then so be it - that happens naturally in any event. I hope and expect that explicit rules, which are far from draconian, will mean the forum gets stronger: more friendly; more welcoming; more supportive; more informative. I, for one, will continue to express strong, forthright opinions when I feel it appropriate and to challenge other members; there's no rule against that as long as it's done without denigrating other people's opinions or characters.

It's clear that "heated discussion" remains perfectly acceptable and it's equally clear that insults are not. That seems fair to me.


If all the clever people go, can I be called brains?
Only if I can be called Virgil

Andy McGregor
28th-November-2006, 09:28 AM
Only if I can be called Virgil:rofl:

On the subject of Franck's new rules. I've been posting on here for years and have a very good idea what Franck disapproves of. And I post with that in mind. I believe that the new rules are simply a written down version of the rules that have been in Franck's head for some time and pretty much those that he's operated by. And I agree with those rules: even if I didn't agree with the rules I would agree with Franck's rights to make up whatever rules he liked for his Forum.

What I do not agree with is the way that David James, in particular, is interpreting the rules and operating as a moderator. And that is not simply because he's given me an infraction for something I'd have got away with in the past :wink: David is behaving like the headmaster's pet. A great deal of his posting is very different from how it was before he became a moderator. Yesterday he actually said "sowwy" when I pointed this out to him, so there is hope :flower:

My advice to David is to forget he's a moderator and go back to posting like a Forumite. Once in a while he'll read something he doesn't like, or believes that other people wouldn't like, he could remind himself that he's got the power to do something about it. But, even then, I believe he should think carefully before acting. One of the great things about having power is not knowing when to use it, it is knowing when you should not use it.

David Bailey
28th-November-2006, 09:43 AM
What I do not agree with is the way that David James, in particular, is interpreting the rules and operating as a moderator.
Andy, you've persistently referred to this comment and my alleged "headmasterly" behaviour. To clarify, my "I've got my eyes on you" comment was a joke, OK? I apologised for it - now, please, let it drop.

Andy McGregor
28th-November-2006, 09:51 AM
Andy, you've persistently referred to this comment and my alleged "headmasterly" behaviour. To clarify, my "I've got my eyes on you" comment was a joke, OK? I apologised for it - now, please, let it drop.Thank you David-the-Moderator for so rapidly giving me an example of exactly what I'm talking about, brilliant!

ducasi
28th-November-2006, 09:59 AM
Thank you David-the-Moderator for so rapidly giving me an example of exactly what I'm talking about, brilliant!
There's nothing that DavidJames has done as a moderator that I'd do very differently.

So while I'm in headmasterly mode, can I refer you to forum rule #2:


2. If you have a problem with a moderator, another member, or an admin, or if you have a concern about a site policy, take it up in a PM or e-mail. You can e-mail me at franck@cerocscotland.com and I will work with you on a resolution.

Caro
28th-November-2006, 09:59 AM
Unfortunately, you can't tell someone when they're talking bad technique.

that's just not true, it's the way you did that earned you the infraction. Critizising and being respectful are not antinomic.


What a day that was! Two infraction points and told off by headmaster David James.

get over it now, all this whining is boring. Moderators have already said they act in concertation with each other. If you have a particular issue with DJ, take it with him directly.

I really don't see what the big deal is with the rules. As many have said, it's just clarifying what already existed and adding a few people to look over the forum as it grows exponentially.
People get used to get away with too much when there weren't enough moderators, and I'm glad if the new state of affairs encourages a bit more civilised discussions around here.

MartinHarper
28th-November-2006, 10:20 AM
What a day that was! Two infraction points and told off by headmaster David James.

I'm not sure which idea is less plausible: DavidJames being a headmaster, or Andy McGregor being emotionally fragile.

With Franck and ducasi both posting their support of DavidJames, I think it's safe to say that your divide and conquer routine has failed. Try something else.

stewart38
28th-November-2006, 10:52 AM
I think there is a clear divide between newbies and oldies and I guess time will tell

All id say is, I’ve never heard before of people being banned for weeks at a time before that’s all im saying

Obviously abusive behaviour is never acceptable

What’s acceptable advertising now ?

Come to a certain ceroc venue and/or meet before ? is that now not acceptable (my Fulham ceroc post)

I assume well know users cant advertise there venue now ?? ie New year day stuff etc

Time will tell

Andy McGregor
28th-November-2006, 11:23 AM
that's just not true, it's the way you did that earned you the infraction. Critizising and being respectful are not antinomic. Now that's the funny thing. I was being fairly gentle in my critique of woodface's tips on spinning, almost scientific: using references, quoting respected sources, etc, etc. I only started taking the Mick when it was obvious that woodface hadn't got a clue what I was talking about or wasn't listening - and after he'd made it clear that he doesn't like old people*.

Of course I expect the moderators to stand shoulder to shoulder and I expect Franck to back them.

What I'm saying is that there's now a feeling of over-moderation, at least from where I'm sitting. I'm saying it quite calmly, but I'm saying it clearly. I don't need to rush around the Forum picking up quotes to illustrate this. It's been everywhere over the last few days for anybody who cares to look. The moderators are giving gentle tickings off if a thread even looks like it might get exciting. It's like being in a mental home where the matron has gone mad with the sedatives "ooh, he's looking a bit excitable today, double the dose". And, from the PMs I've received, is a major reason for some old hands leaving the Forum.

Me? I'm posting what I don't like about the new behaviour patterns in the hope that they are not going to become the norm. Do I like the way the Forum has gone recently? No I don't, and if I'd just joined I wouldn't stay. There are too many in-jokes which a newby wouldn't understand: there's too much luvviness between individuals that I haven't met: there's too much talk of how bad and wild it used to be: the moderators seem to be popping up in many threads to talk about moderation: it all feels a bit cliquey too. It's all a getting a bit dull. In the past I've created a heated debate in the certain knowledge that people find it interesting. I've done it before, and the Forum traffic has been huge! But the last time I did it, in a fairly mild way (said that the bad taste in their mouth might cause bad breath) I got an infraction. This leaves me wondering what you can post, how far you can go. My guess is nowhere :tears:

Why am I posting this? I'd like to see a better balance. Before the new programme of moderation there was far too much mindless luvviness. I see this change as taking the Forum even further in that direction.

*not that I'm old, but I know how easily upset some old people can be:innocent:

Andy McGregor
28th-November-2006, 11:34 AM
Sensible stuffIs this sensible enough? It's a time of change and the time to comment is early in that change. Especially if the change is not to your liking.

However, as Anti-Dullness Moderator I find myself boring and am now giving myself an infraction for being dull.


You have received an infraction at Ceroc Scotland Forum.

http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=313128

Reason: Terminally dull and boring
-------
Please avoid being boring, especially if new / newly-returned members might read your posts
-------

This infraction is worth 4 point(s) and your access is suspended for 5 days. Further dullness is a serious infraction and will never expire.

Magic Hans
28th-November-2006, 11:41 AM
Quick tuppence worth -

How many:
posts per day on the forum (ish)
number of members
of threads
PMs
hits
etc

How about last year? .... 3 years ago? five years ago?

What's my point? Hopefully it's reasonably clear - change.

Sometimes painful, sometimes welcome, often both.

I know of no system that doesn't have a 'birth, growth, decay, death' lifecycle.

The difference being timescale.

In terms of communities - smaller communities are inevitably more intimate, and easier to manage and administer [realm of the benevolent dictator]

Larger communities inevitably require more structure, clarification, boundaries in order to survive. Clearly too much will strangle, and too little will result in chaos, and quite possible fracture and disintegration.

As far as I can tell, these 'new' rules (they're not new at all, they've simply just now been written down) are no problem - but a symptom of an underlying issue - growth.

Some prefer the family-likeness of smaller groups whilst others like the massive variety larger groups offer. Some leave, others join. I would call it inevitabiblity.

If Franck is trying to please all of the people, all of the time, he would fail (as would the forum - or so Aesop (http://www.bartleby.com/17/1/62.html)would have us believe).

As with any change, through growth or otherwise, there will be winners and losers. That's life. Only one real option - live with it.

tuppence worth ends here!!

Caro
28th-November-2006, 11:46 AM
sensible stuff ;)


Well you certainly are very passionate about the forum and I respect that although personally I am happy with the new level of moderation going on.

May be some people have left because of it, but I also know that people, who brought a very valuable contribution, have left because of lack of it (remember DavivB for example).

The forum evolves as it gets more popular, new people coming etc and the forum has to be welcoming and non-threatening for them too.

Coming back to the technical aspect of dancing, maybe we could have a 'dancing advise' section in which only serious, on-topic info is posted, possibly with a system to identify how much credit you can give to the advise? That would be an area with relatively short threads (no chatter, jokes etc) and a relatively small number of threads? (in comparison to the 'let's talk about dance' section).

stewart38
28th-November-2006, 12:03 PM
Now that's the funny thing. I was being fairly gentle in my critique of woodface's tips on spinning, almost scientific: using references, quoting respected sources, etc, etc. I only started taking the Mick when it was obvious that woodface hadn't got a clue what I was talking about or wasn't listening - and after he'd made it clear that he doesn't like old people*.

Of course I expect the moderators to stand shoulder to shoulder and I expect Franck to back them.

What I'm saying is that there's now a feeling of over-moderation, at least from where I'm sitting. I'm saying it quite calmly, but I'm saying it clearly. I don't need to rush around the Forum picking up quotes to illustrate this. It's been everywhere over the last few days for anybody who cares to look. The moderators are giving gentle tickings off if a thread even looks like it might get exciting. It's like being in a mental home where the matron has gone mad with the sedatives "ooh, he's looking a bit excitable today, double the dose". And, from the PMs I've received, is a major reason for some old hands leaving the Forum.

Me? I'm posting what I don't like about the new behaviour patterns in the hope that they are not going to become the norm. Do I like the way the Forum has gone recently? No I don't, and if I'd just joined I wouldn't stay. There are too many in-jokes which a newby wouldn't understand: there's too much luvviness between individuals that I haven't met: there's too much talk of how bad and wild it used to be: the moderators seem to be popping up in many threads to talk about moderation: it all feels a bit cliquey too. It's all a getting a bit dull. In the past I've created a heated debate in the certain knowledge that people find it interesting. I've done it before, and the Forum traffic has been huge! But the last time I did it, in a fairly mild way (said that the bad taste in their mouth might cause bad breath) I got an infraction. This leaves me wondering what you can post, how far you can go. My guess is nowhere :tears:

Why am I posting this? I'd like to see a better balance. Before the new programme of moderation there was far too much mindless luvviness. I see this change as taking the Forum even further in that direction.

*not that I'm old, but I know how easily upset some old people can be:innocent:

I know where your coming from

The cigarette debate of years gone past was often heated

I wonder how many infractions that would get now :sad:

I hope we don’t kill the ‘passion’ of ‘debate’


Ps Thanks for ceroc ***** for putting ash trays on all their tables nice gesture :whistle:

Genie
28th-November-2006, 12:20 PM
{snip}
What I'm saying is that there's now a feeling of over-moderation,
{snip}
Me? I'm posting what I don't like about the new behaviour patterns in the hope that they are not going to become the norm. Do I like the way the Forum has gone recently? No I don't, and if I'd just joined I wouldn't stay. There are too many in-jokes which a newby wouldn't understand: there's too much luvviness between individuals that I haven't met: there's too much talk of how bad and wild it used to be: the moderators seem to be popping up in many threads to talk about moderation: it all feels a bit cliquey too. It's all a getting a bit dull. In the past I've created a heated debate in the certain knowledge that people find it interesting. I've done it before, and the Forum traffic has been huge! But the last time I did it, in a fairly mild way (said that the bad taste in their mouth might cause bad breath) I got an infraction. This leaves me wondering what you can post, how far you can go. My guess is nowhere :tears:

Why am I posting this? I'd like to see a better balance. Before the new programme of moderation there was far too much mindless luvviness. I see this change as taking the Forum even further in that direction.

*not that I'm old, but I know how easily upset some old people can be:innocent:

I am afraid I have to agree (at risk of being told off by moderators). I find myself wishing none of this had happened. A few weeks ago, I wasn't afraid to tell Andy he was talking a load of garbage (and then explain why, of course). Now I can't say anything in good humour (see above) without wondering who will take it seriously first and how long it will be before I get an infraction.

It's partly why I've vanished from certain heated debates recently. It doesn't feel the same when you think everyone is going to breathe down your neck to find something to complain about.

That is my opinion. Sorry if it upsets someone.

ducasi
28th-November-2006, 01:01 PM
I am afraid I have to agree (at risk of being told off by moderators). Agreeing with Andy McGregor is still permitted in the rules – clearly an oversight on Franck's behalf. Will see if we can get that changed as soon as possible. ;)


It's partly why I've vanished from certain heated debates recently. It doesn't feel the same when you think everyone is going to breathe down your neck to find something to complain about.

That is my opinion. Sorry if it upsets someone. Opinions expressed without rudeness are unlikely to upset the moderators. But maybe that will upset someone...

jivecat
28th-November-2006, 01:04 PM
That is my opinion. Sorry if it upsets someone.
You're entitled to your opinion and you expressed it in a polite and civilised way so you have no need to apologise for it.
I don't think anyone is going to be upset by that even if they happened to disagree with it.

Lee Bartholomew
28th-November-2006, 01:17 PM
Think the moderation is fine. I use other forums for programming stuff and they get ruled much heavier than here!!!!!!

Personally I have not found Andys posts about me (dispite that it has now carried on in to about 5 threads!!!) personal or disrespectful. Infact Im quite complimented by the fact he must think about me alot:nice: and take most of his comments laughing.

Im certainly no teachers pet!!!. I don't personally know any of the mods on here and I will be subject to the same rules as everyone else.

The forum is a good thing. If you don't like it, don't use it !!!

Twirly
28th-November-2006, 01:21 PM
I agree with the opinion that there seems to be a higher and more involved level of moderation of late. It doesn't really bother me one way or another. But I would expect it to settle down again - we have new moderators, clarified rules, of course there are going to be some minor hiccups. But as with most change, things will settle, everyone will get used to it and things will probably carry on much as before.

Lynn
28th-November-2006, 02:33 PM
It's partly why I've vanished from certain heated debates recently. It doesn't feel the same when you think everyone is going to breathe down your neck to find something to complain about. You can still have debate, heated and vigorous debate - just don't be intentionally rude or insulting.

I agree with Lou that these were 'unwritten' rules all along - show some respect for others on the forum - and it is sad that we have got this stage. But I think that things will settle down again - and I know that robust debate, banter and play will continue.

Gadget
29th-November-2006, 02:07 PM
Just as an asside - does anyone actually read the rules? What about the rules on software licence agreements?

"yea,yea,yea... blah blah blah, tick, click - just let me do what I opend this for..."

IMHO Rules are only there for the moderators to worry about: life goes on. (or so I'm told :whistle: ) It's a forum - a discussion - a place to meet and talk about stuff - a social gathering - bound by normal social rules of behaviour.
If I happen to step over a line, I'll be told. :shrug: I'll still post innane drivel and speak my mind; why should I behave any differently from any other social gathering? :D

Dreadful Scathe
30th-November-2006, 01:10 PM
I'll still post innane drivel and speak my mind

what do you mean "and"? that's exactly the same thing :)

timbp
1st-December-2006, 09:24 AM
Having just been forced to agree to the rules to be able to post, I posted my message, then went back to see what I had agreed to, then read this thread.

I don't have any real problems with the rules. I do have a problem with the fact that rules were thought necessary. And that becomes a philosophical/ethical matter, in which my views don't necessarily match those of modern (western) society.

I find it sad that community control lost out to regulation.

Previously, if someone did not like a post they could give negative rep; a poster's rep depended on the general community opinion of what they wrote. And if somebody really did not like a post, they could report it to a moderator, who could delete or move it.
In addition, moderators had the power to split threads, putting off-topic posts into a more appropriate area.

Personally, I prefer the community control method, with full disclosure.
With regulation, the big problem is the moment you prohibit something, everything not specifically prohibited becomes acceptable (defence is "it's not against the rules"). The risk with community control is people being banned for personal reaons (or allowed to post for personal reaons). With community control and full disclosure, anyone can see why a post was deleted or a person banned (without necessarily seeing the post; see whirlpool.net.au for an example of moderation with disclosure), and appeal if they feel it is justified.

Unfortunately, increased regulation is a part of the modern world. Courts used to apply the "reasonable person" test -- what would a reasonable person think in this situation? Now the thinking appears to be: "a reasonable person would hire a lawyer, who would argue ...". And lawyers are trained to think in terms of law (and, if it's not illegal it must be legal).

For the forum rules, "if it's not illegal, it must be legal" means the moderators cannot use their personal assessment of community mores to decide whether to delete a post. They must decide in accordance with rules. And if these rules are not specified, then all decisions are suspect.

Therefore, we have rules that we must agree to before posting.

The side effect is the same problem: "if it's not illegal it must be legal". I dont' think it's likely, but we could at any time get a spate of posts that follow the rules but would be regarded by members as spam. And the moderators will be able to do nothing about them if they follow the published rules.

ducasi
1st-December-2006, 09:50 AM
The side effect is the same problem: "if it's not illegal it must be legal". I dont' think it's likely, but we could at any time get a spate of posts that follow the rules but would be regarded by members as spam. And the moderators will be able to do nothing about them if they follow the published rules. Did you miss this paragraph in the rules?

Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules don't forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden. We don't intend to censor messages based on the opinions expressed within posts, but we will enforce the policies outlined both here and on the Forum. We reserve the right to remove, modify or move posts at our discretion and without explanation. As moderators we prefer to use common sense, and the "what would a sensible person think" test.

We always prefer to hear from the community on what it thinks, and so please continue reporting posts that you think are wrong or inappropriate.

timbp
1st-December-2006, 10:17 AM
Did you miss this paragraph in the rules?

I did see it on my first browse through the rules, but missed it when I made my post.

But I think it illustrates my point -- that paragraph ought to be all the rules we need. Everything beyond that becomes legislation and disputable. That para says post according to community rules as defined by moderators, complain if you don't think a moderator is fair.

Andy McGregor
3rd-December-2006, 02:19 AM
However, as Anti-Dullness Moderator I find myself boring and am now giving myself an infraction for being dull.YIPPEE!!! My 5 days self-imposed ban for dullness are now expired.

As self-appointed dullness moderator I will be giving further notices of Infractions to other Forumites. In my version of the rules being rude is not an offence, the other, boring, moderators can handle that difficult chetnut. Also, I will be making notices of infractions public. Just so you know, infractions will be given for the following;

1. Being boring or dull
2. Being too luvvified
3. Being arrogant (note to self: be careful on this one :innocent: )
4. Being thick
5. Persistent and annoying bad spelling
6. Giving bad dance advice as if you know it all

Of course some of the 'official' moderators may view the giving of these infractions as breaking one of their many rules. Time will tell.

David Bailey
3rd-December-2006, 10:08 AM
...chetnut...
... 5. Persistent and annoying bad spelling...
.
I feel duty-bound to report that one to you :whistle: :na:

And what's your position on multiple exclamation marks?

fletch
3rd-December-2006, 10:12 AM
4. Being thick
5. Persistent and annoying bad spellin

.



Guilty as charged your honour :blush:

Still not going anywhere though :na:


:D

Andy McGregor
3rd-December-2006, 12:26 PM
I feel duty-bound to report that one to you :whistle: :na:

And what's your position on multiple exclamation marks?
I will be making allowances for typos:blush:

My position on exclamation marks is that, in normal discourse, three is the maximum. Of course there will be exceptions and I will use my judgement and will not apply the rules like sweeties, my name's not David James :wink: