Rule Clarification

[tersh]

Howdy.

I was reading through the forum rules, and I think there are a couple that need clarification, or which seem like they are saying things that are a bit odd.

In particular:

• Posting personal information. This includes but is not limited to: phone numbers, full names, physical addresses, IP addresses, emails, and social media sites.

This seems to suggest that I would be breaking the rules if I sent my own full name or phone number to another user via PM.
And that the instagram thread would also be verboten. I assume this means "posting the personal information of anyone that isn't you (without their permission), given that this information is not already widely known and publicly available". I add the second bit, as it would seem silly to not allow pointing people at the social media accounts of someone like Jordan.

• Death threats, threats of violence, and advocating or discussing suicide.

What is meant here by "discussing suicide"? If I am feeling depressed, and post in my log (or even start a thread) about how I am struggling with suicidal thoughts (perhaps sharing how those thoughts manifest) and am reaching out for community support and contact, that would appear to be in violation of the rules. I assume this is meant to mean that one should not suggest to another forum member that they should go jump off a bridge.

[cgeorg]

If I may pile on...

Moderator decisions and actions are not open to public discussion.

This kind of smacks of another site whose moderators' actions ended up causing a fairly significant exodus from that site. Are you sure you want to go this route?

[tersh]

If I may pile on...

Moderator decisions and actions are not open to public discussion.

This kind of smacks of another site whose moderators' actions ended up causing a fairly significant exodus from that site. Are you sure you want to go this route?

While I generally am all for transparency, I understand this to a certain extent. It keeps moderation from becoming a big ol' clusterfuck of drama on a site, and I believe many sites have this policy. Moderation should be infrequent, and people whose posts are moderated should be able to PM the mods/admin and receive a clear explanation of how the post violated the rules. If this is what happens, there should rarely be instances where it is necessary to have a large public discussion of the matter.

[SeanHerbison]

I too have questions, and this seems as good a place as any to ask them.

Overly long or disruptive images, text or format changes, trolling, or other blatant forum disruption.

Can you clarify the bolded part?

Raids of other sites or sections of these forums.

Raids?

Linking to sites that violate forum rules.

How strictly is this going to be interpreted? I mean, the RTS forums have been overrun by spam for quite a while now, so does linking to a useful thread there violate this rule?

Utilizing multiple accounts to avoid a ban, including a permanent ban. Each user is allowed one account.

Not really a question here, but I'm pretty sure someone who makes another account after getting perma-banned isn't going to care about this rule anyway.

[mgil]

Howdy.

I was reading through the forum rules, and I think there are a couple that need clarification, or which seem like they are saying things that are a bit odd.

In particular:

• Posting personal information. This includes but is not limited to: phone numbers, full names, physical addresses, IP addresses, emails, and social media sites.

This seems to suggest that I would be breaking the rules if I sent my own full name or phone number to another user via PM.
And that the instagram thread would also be verboten. I assume this means "posting the personal information of anyone that isn't you (without their permission), given that this information is not already widely known and publicly available". I add the second bit, as it would seem silly to not allow pointing people at the social media accounts of someone like Jordan.

• Death threats, threats of violence, and advocating or discussing suicide.

What is meant here by "discussing suicide"? If I am feeling depressed, and post in my log (or even start a thread) about how I am struggling with suicidal thoughts (perhaps sharing how those thoughts manifest) and am reaching out for community support and contact, that would appear to be in violation of the rules. I assume this is meant to mean that one should not suggest to another forum member that they should go jump off a bridge.

Yeah, the first rule you mention is an anti-doxxing rule. If someone posts their own info, like in the IG thread, that’s their own deal.

The second one needs to be edited to your point. I think advocation is what we really want to avoid.

[mgil]

If I may pile on...

Moderator decisions and actions are not open to public discussion.

This kind of smacks of another site whose moderators' actions ended up causing a fairly significant exodus from that site. Are you sure you want to go this route?

While I generally am all for transparency, I understand this to a certain extent. It keeps moderation from becoming a big ol' clusterfuck of drama on a site, and I believe many sites have this policy. Moderation should be infrequent, and people whose posts are moderated should be able to PM the mods/admin and receive a clear explanation of how the post violated the rules. If this is what happens, there should rarely be instances where it is necessary to have a large public discussion of the matter.

Exactly. The idea is that the moderators will respond to the person banned with justification. Members discussing this in the open would be some sort of forum gaslighting or similar.

[mgil]

I too have questions, and this seems as good a place as any to ask them.

Overly long or disruptive images, text or format changes, trolling, or other blatant forum disruption.

Can you clarify the bolded part?

Raids of other sites or sections of these forums.

Raids?

Linking to sites that violate forum rules.

How strictly is this going to be interpreted? I mean, the RTS forums have been overrun by spam for quite a while now, so does linking to a useful thread there violate this rule?

Utilizing multiple accounts to avoid a ban, including a permanent ban. Each user is allowed one account.

Not really a question here, but I'm pretty sure someone who makes another account after getting perma-banned isn't going to care about this rule anyway.

The first one point to forum software. Do you remember when sometimes SS would get format goofy because of someone embedding stuff wrong?

Raids are like a forum mob movement where members would swoop into another forum and basically harass/insult users there.

The linking to other forums that violate rules probably needs to be clarified. Idea is that your not linking to porn or darkweb stuff.

Correct on the last one, but it’s worth stating.

[Cody]

Hey all! Anything to do with any clarification needed on the rules is a team project, so I can try to answer some things, but if we need to adjust the wording it will need to be ran by the group.

This seems to suggest that I would be breaking the rules if I sent my own full name or phone number to another user via PM.
And that the instagram thread would also be verboten. I assume this means "posting the personal information of anyone that isn't you (without their permission), given that this information is not already widely known and publicly available". I add the second bit, as it would seem silly to not allow pointing people at the social media accounts of someone like Jordan.

Yes, that's the intent. It's a replacement for the doxxing role, so the goal is to be more specific than "don't doxx", since the technical definition and the intended outcomes aren't necessarily identical.

What is meant here by "discussing suicide"? If I am feeling depressed, and post in my log (or even start a thread) about how I am struggling with suicidal thoughts (perhaps sharing how those thoughts manifest) and am reaching out for community support and contact, that would appear to be in violation of the rules. I assume this is meant to mean that one should not suggest to another forum member that they should go jump off a bridge.

Right - telling someone to kill themselves is not good. To be fair though, if anyone is actually having those mental health issues, they should seek out professional help.

This kind of smacks of another site whose moderators' actions ended up causing a fairly significant exodus from that site. Are you sure you want to go this route?

Tersh is absolutely correct - view any other successful forum that's relatively free of drama and conflict. They all follow this rule. If you have a complaint, it's outlined in the rules exactly how to address it, you aren't without recourse. Clarifying the rules as we have should mitigate cases where a violation is less than clear due to interpretation or the like.

Can you clarify the bolded part?

If you start posting chapters from a book in the middle of a thread. Or dozens of pictures of the planets in the middle of a discussion about squats.

Raids?

Usually only a "thing" at larger sites. But imagine if there was a group that basically only posted in one section, say off topic. And that group decided to troll and spam another section, like the nutrition forum. Or perhaps the training forum posters get a group to go harass the bb.com training forum.

That's raiding.

How strictly is this going to be interpreted? I mean, the RTS forums have been overrun by spam for quite a while now, so does linking to a useful thread there violate this rule?

RTS isn't the one doing the spam. Linking to the spammers' sites would be the violation. Mainly it's too avoid linking to a porn site or the like.

Not really a question here, but I'm pretty sure someone who makes another account after getting perma-banned isn't going to care about this rule anyway.

It's grounds for an immediate ban without breaking any other rules. We've already had to do it, but again, most work is behind the curtain.



ETA: @mgil has faster fingers than me!

[iamsmu]

I worry about the ban on slurs. I think I know what you have in mind, but there are people playing the oppression olympics at the highest levels around here. Given the euphemism treadmill, today's perfectly acceptable label is tomorrow's offensive term. Negative associations build up with the label and then it rejected for something new: crippled -> handicap -> disabled -> differently abled (or whatever).

The intersectional totalitarian alt-left loves to play language policing games. It allows them to feel morally superior and to show everyone just how sensitive they are to oppression. They see perfectly acceptable terms as slurs. . . .

Is "tranny" now a slur? It was a perfectly acceptable label just recently. RuPaul has a song called "Tranny Chaser". . . "Shemale" seems to have fallen out of favor. RuPaul used to have a segment on Drag Race called "You Got Shemail". But this label suddenly became offensive too. I can't keep up with all this nonsense.

The slur ban needs to exclude the latest fashions in offense. I'm not sure how to formulate that rule. Perhaps there should just be fewer rules in general, since they are hard to spell out clearly and they risk forbidding anything that anyone could find offensive, however unreasonable.

[Wilhelm]

At this point, either very clear rules for shitposting need to be stated, or the forum eliminated.

I don't post there a lot, but i see it as a minefield at this point.
So, no more shittalking about Mister Potato Head or The White Ninja, because it's behind their backs?

Seems like fun has its place. I'd miss that aspect of the site, even if it has nothing to do with learning or helping my training.

This is my last post/

[iamsmu]

At this point, either very clear rules for shitposting need to be stated, or the forum eliminated.

I don't post there a lot, but i see it as a minefield at this point.
So, no more shittalking about Mister Potato Head or The White Ninja, because it's behind their backs?

This is my last post/

Yep. Nothing can be said there that you couldn't say on the main twitter feed for Starbucks.

The link ban is also way too restrictive. I'm not sure that I can even link to youtube or to some major newspapers without violating the rule.

What exactly are you guys trying to accomplish with these rules? It looks like you are trying to make sure that no one boycotts the business, to protect the brand. Is this now a brand? What's for sale? (I've got something like 4 ad blockers running. I'd have no idea if you were selling ads at this point. . . .)

[Insight: You are trying to protect the brand (or businesses) of some of the people who post here using their real names. There should have be an anonymity rule. No one can use their real name as their handle. That would have been cool. Too late now. . . ]

[quark]

"Posting copyrighted material without permission from the copyright owner. This includes linking to illegal streams, torrent sites, or otherwise providing sources or methods of copyright infringement."

Consider adding an exception to the first sentence for brief quotations that would comply with applicable fair use rules.

If you're feeling very legalistic, consider clarifying who owns the copyright to posts, the board or the poster. Or not.

[iamsmu]

"Posting copyrighted material without permission from the copyright owner. This includes linking to illegal streams, torrent sites, or otherwise providing sources or methods of copyright infringement."

Consider adding an exception to the first sentence for brief quotations that would comply with applicable fair use rules.

If you're feeling very legalistic, consider clarifying who owns the copyright to posts, the board or the poster. Or not.

Why would this rule exist? Why can't we link to articles? Is it to reveal a method to mention sci-hub?

[quark]

"Posting copyrighted material without permission from the copyright owner. This includes linking to illegal streams, torrent sites, or otherwise providing sources or methods of copyright infringement."

Consider adding an exception to the first sentence for brief quotations that would comply with applicable fair use rules.

If you're feeling very legalistic, consider clarifying who owns the copyright to posts, the board or the poster. Or not.

Why would this rule exist? Why can't we link to articles? Is it to reveal a method to mention sci-hub?

A rule against posting copyrighted materials is to protect the site and the poster against claims of copyright infringement. I don't see anything against linking to articles (as opposed to illegal streams, etc.).

[iamsmu]

A rule against posting copyrighted materials is to protect the site and the poster against claims of copyright infringement. I don't see anything against linking to articles (as opposed to illegal streams, etc.).

I was referring to linking to sci-hub.

If this is a serious concern, which I seriously doubt it is, then every song that someone has linked to on youtube is a threat. And we all need to be very careful not to quote more than two lines of any one song or poem. . . .

I worry that turning this forum into a business, especially one with a timid legal department, will ruin it.

[iamsmu]

@iamsmu don't worry until we start selling our supplement line.

OK. But I was hoping that ES might release a tape of grunting sounds or weights clanging that I can listen to so I can refocus and Jedi mind trick all my pain away.

[platypus]

I worry about the ban on slurs. I think I know what you have in mind, but there are people playing the oppression olympics at the highest levels around here. Given the euphemism treadmill, today's perfectly acceptable label is tomorrow's offensive term. Negative associations build up with the label and then it rejected for something new: crippled -> handicap -> disabled -> differently abled (or whatever).

The intersectional totalitarian alt-left loves to play language policing games. It allows them to feel morally superior and to show everyone just how sensitive they are to oppression. They see perfectly acceptable terms as slurs. . . .

Is "tranny" now a slur? It was a perfectly acceptable label just recently. RuPaul has a song called "Tranny Chaser". . . "Shemale" seems to have fallen out of favor. RuPaul used to have a segment on Drag Race called "You Got Shemail". But this label suddenly became offensive too. I can't keep up with all this nonsense.

The slur ban needs to exclude the latest fashions in offense. I'm not sure how to formulate that rule. Perhaps there should just be fewer rules in general, since they are hard to spell out clearly and they risk forbidding anything that anyone could find offensive, however unreasonable.

Agreed. If we're going to ban slurs, we need clarification on exactly what constitutes a slur. A list of unacceptable words would be immensely helpful. For example, I was recently told in my workplace not to use the word "lesbian" as it is no longer an acceptable term for female homosexuality. I thought it was a polite term. Basically, we need a list to avoid confusion.

Also, is satirical racist or sexist humor banned?

[iamsmu]

Agreed. If we're going to ban slurs, we need clarification on exactly what constitutes a slur. A list of unacceptable words would be immensely helpful. For example, I was recently told in my workplace not to use the word "lesbian" as it is no longer an acceptable term for female homosexuality. I thought it was a polite term. Basically, we need a list to avoid confusion.

Also, is satirical racist or sexist humor banned?

Your HR department must be filled with fucking idiots. Good luck.

Does the BB forum have a list of banned words? Is that why there are so many creative misspelling over there? I find the reaction formation ("no homo" in every other post) over there a little off putting, so I haven't spent enough time researching.

Good thing that ES limits up to tiny avatars, else it would be filled with shirtless pictures of power lifters.

[quark]

A rule against posting copyrighted materials is to protect the site and the poster against claims of copyright infringement. I don't see anything against linking to articles (as opposed to illegal streams, etc.).

I was referring to linking to sci-hub.

If this is a serious concern, which I seriously doubt it is, then every song that someone has linked to on youtube is a threat. And we all need to be very careful not to quote more than two lines of any one song or poem. . . .

I worry that turning this forum into a business, especially one with a timid legal department, will ruin it.

Linking to youtube is not be a copyright issue. Linking in general is not a copyright issue. Reprinting an article from a web site might be, if the copyright owner cares and is big enough to do something about it. Whether or not this site is viewed as a business is essentially irrelevant.

This site's existing rule prohibits any inclusion of copyrighted material. Under that rule, as written, two lines from a song are a violation. I'm suggesting an exemption to that rule, which would allow two lines.

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding sci-hub. Perhaps it was before my time.

[quark]

A list of banned words is stupid, if for no other reason than that it's easy to get around the ban. I see that the board did not censor the supposedly banned words in nikipedia's post.

In the end, if the moderators or the site owner want to enforce a certain tone, then users either have to trust them or move on or spend a lot of energy in most likely pointless debate.