New Rules On Conduct

[ImWithStupid]

Due to recent, and some past, issues on this site, the following, subjective guideline, has been implemented by both the Administration and the moderators of this site, in an attempt to regulate the free debate on JustBS, without any flame wars or personal attacks by members.

 

 

 

NOTE: We are not going to hire an accountant and, nobody is expected to keep a running line item of points. This is just a guideline. Admins and Mods can rule some behavior as more extreme then other behavior, and skip steps as deemed appropriate.

 

Update: Also see this...

 

Off Topic Forum - The Ultimate Chat and Debate Forum - FAQ: Community Guidelines

[timesjoke]

And now it starts.

 

What is to be considered a personal attack?

 

What happens when your assumption is wrong (like your last assumption of who started what)?

 

 

You have already said you don't care if you make mistakes in judgement because you see your mistakes like a bad call in football, no harm done in your view.

 

 

 

Sometimes a personal attack is on topic, let's consider the abortion discussion where I was called names for having a strong opinion to end most abortion or Wez being called a killer becasue he killed his child.

 

 

 

I don't know if it will help but I offer part of the rules on my debate forum as a kind of guideline:

 

 

Personal attacks:

 

Whenever discussing things that we feel deeply about, it is normal for a certain amount of spirited comments, even personal attacks to be used. Here we encourage spirited debates but we do not want things to degrade into complete chaos so we offer these two classifications of personal attacks:

 

 

Type one-A discussion about 9/11 being an inside job and you say someone who believes in that is stupid or uneducated. While this is a personal attack, it does have everything to do with the topic of 9/11 and how you truly feel about it. This is called spirited debate and is allowed.

 

 

Type two-The same discussion and you say something about the person's heritage, their personal life, or use defaming personal descriptions like calling them a homosexual or other attack that is completely intended to demean or belittle someone as a person, but has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

 

Type two personal attacks end discussions, they stop free sharing of ideas and they create an air of aggression and fuel the fire for defensive attitudes and hostile replies that are never ending so they are not allowed on this forum.

 

 

When someone makes a type two attack on another person, we quote the person's attack and give them a chance to make ammends to the one they attacked(all handled in PM's). If they believe the attack is justified, they must offer support of why it was justified and a minimum of two moderators or one admin decides the merit of the explanation and informs the person of their decision.

 

If we decide the explanation is good or simply middle ground, we ask the person to be more careful, if not, the person must provide a retraction of his comment(edit post and offer an appology). If they refuse to retract their attack, or we must order the same person to make retractions ten times, they are immediately removed from the forum.

 

 

 

As a side note, I would like to explain that the reason I am here and on other forums debating instead of my own is in order to maintain my objectivity, I cannot get down in the trenches of spirited debates and then enforce the rules of the board. You don't see Judges hanging out with the police. I have a rule where if one of my moderators is posting in a thread, they cannot exercise their mod powers in that thread except for the most obvious problem like a spammer posting porn or a member losing his cool, and even then I take more time to review those situations to be sure there is no possibility of a staff member abusing his mod powers just to win a debate.

 

 

 

I just found a great example:

 

Thank God the people of my great State of Nebraska, even if they follow the socialist, I mean, Democratic party, were smart enough to not vote for Hillary.

 

Here you attack all Democrats and call them socialists. Clearly this is against the new rule you just posted before making that attack on Democrats so where does this leave us? Do you think we do not have democrats on this forum?

 

I see your post in that thread as on topic and clearly not disruptive to the forum but under your own stated new rule, this kind of thing is not allowed. Unless you will be the kind of mod who says, do as I say, not as I do.

[eddo]

I kinda agree with Timesjoke, although judging by the severity of the points it would take quite a bit to be idiot boxed, so it likely isn't that bug a deal.

 

 

What do these mean? What is a Signature Rule violation? I didn't know we had a signature rule.

 

Why are innapropriate pictures worth less than innapropriate language? What constitues either of these? Is in innapropriate language if we bypass the language filter?

 

Do these points apply to all the forums, or just the On Topic one? Is "Free for All" still a free for all?

 

I don't mean to be a pain, but I think some clarification is necessary to understand this better.

[Feckless Wench]

Sounds perfectly fair to me. The one thing I would ask though is this:

 

Does this apply solely to activity on this site?

 

Could a conversation/argument that started on the site but was then carried over to yahoo etc count as an infraction?

[wez]

Wez is a ing dumbass liberal.

 

Good question.. What is a signature violation?

 

Don't tell me I can't agree with BCAR anymore.. (Inside jungle joke only funny to myself)

 

Eddo, in the spirit of peace and the teachings of Jesus, I will hereby release your head from my mouth, again.. Don't blow it.

 

Saunters over to a large cowpie and drops his prize. Hahahahahahaha

[DaMan]

Sounds perfectly fair to me. The one thing I would ask though is this:

 

Does this apply solely to activity on this site?

 

Could a conversation/argument that started on the site but was then carried over to yahoo etc count as an infraction?

Yes. What happens at other sites is none of our business. However, if an argument starts on another site and spills over to here then we will take appropriate action to stop it.

 

The signture rule is to keep people from using huge graphics in the sig.

[wez]

Yes. What happens at other sites is none of our business. However, if an argument starts on another site and spills over to here then we will take appropriate action to stop it.

 

The signture rule is to keep people from using huge graphics in the sig.

 

 

Sounds reasonable to me...

[DaMan]

As a side note, I would like to explain that the reason I am here and on other forums debating instead of my own is in order to maintain my objectivity, I cannot get down in the trenches of spirited debates and then enforce the rules of the board. You don't see Judges hanging out with the police. I have a rule where if one of my moderators is posting in a thread, they cannot exercise their mod powers in that thread except for the most obvious problem like a spammer posting porn or a member losing his cool, and even then I take more time to review those situations to be sure there is no possibility of a staff member abusing his mod powers just to win a debate.

 

And this is a good rule to follow if you're a mod. You can't objectively make a decision when you are engaging in the debate. When those instances happen I would rather the mods step back and let one of the unbiased mods take control.

I speak of mods as plural even though we only have one at this time. We are discussing adding another.

[wez]

And this is a good rule to follow if you're a mod. You can't objectively make a decision when you are engaging in the debate. When those instances happen I would rather the mods step back and let one of the unbiased mods take control.

I speak of mods as plural even though we only have one at this time. We are discussing adding another.

 

I vote Ron Paul... I think he'll, sadly, be looking for a another job.

 

Or Hugo would be cool... Smart, fair, reasonable man.. Even if he doesn't agree with you, he'll defend your right to say it til death.. Though I highly doubt he'd want to.. I know I wouldn't. Once I got the first pm from someone whining about someone else I'd lose it..

 

Babysitting stinks. I wouldn't wanna babysit me.. One such unfortunate soul when I was about 5 or so took a Johnny West dolls boot to the forehead drawing blood after continuously whipping me with a hot wheels track.. Hahahahahaha.. never did whip me again with it.. Damn near knocked him out.. I aint no victim.

[eddo]

The signture rule is to keep people from using huge graphics in the sig.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I block out everyones signatures anyway, so that one doesn't matter to me, but it is nice to know.

[Feckless Wench]

Do we HAVE to endure those repulsive 'butt' signature pics? I think you know the ones I mean without me painting a picture?

[wez]

Do we HAVE to endure those repulsive 'butt' signature pics? I think you know the ones I mean without me painting a picture?

 

 

LOL... never had the pleasure of one of those on my eyes..

 

I was thinking of changing mine to..

 

 

Fecky has a whip, and I like her to use it on me.

[snafu]

Do we HAVE to endure those repulsive 'butt' signature pics? I think you know the ones I mean without me painting a picture?

 

No I don't. Please paint me a picture. Or better yet send me yours.

[ImWithStupid]

No I don't. Please paint me a picture. Or better yet send me yours.

 

I think she is referring to the "goatse" pic, and no, those types of pictures aren't allowed on here.

[wez]

I think she is referring to the "goatse" pic, and no, those types of pictures aren't allowed on here.

 

 

 

Hahahahahaha... I've made it well known I wasn't a big fan of Goatse. Perhaps a bit too much..

[snafu]

I think she is referring to the "goatse" pic, and no, those types of pictures aren't allowed on here.

 

I'm sure it was and it was in jest. I hate those pics.

[phreakwars]

Ya, no goatse please... but then again, ever have a REAL close look at the image in my signature?

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

And now it starts.

 

What is to be considered a personal attack?

 

 

I just found a great example:

 

Originally Posted by ImWithStupid

Thank God the people of my great State of Nebraska, even if they follow the socialist, I mean, Democratic party, were smart enough to not vote for Hillary.

 

Here you attack all Democrats and call them socialists. Clearly this is against the new rule you just posted before making that attack on Democrats so where does this leave us? Do you think we do not have democrats on this forum?

 

I see your post in that thread as on topic and clearly not disruptive to the forum but under your own stated new rule, this kind of thing is not allowed. Unless you will be the kind of mod who says, do as I say, not as I do.

 

The rule is...

 

Personally Insulting a Member(s)

 

No member(s) were personally attacked. I have no idea, for sure, if any members belong to any particular party, or any party at all. I myself am registered Republican (but considering changing to indipendant) but don't consider myself as a part of the Republican Party.

 

Unless we have a member named "Democratic Party" and I meant to attack that particular member, by calling him/her a socialist, it isn't relevant. Also my opinion that much of the Democratic Party has socialist ideals, is just that. My opinion.

 

I was also talking about the people here in Nebraska that turned out for the

Democratic Caucus and voted. I don't think that applies to any member on this forum. At least not to my knowledge.

[ImWithStupid]

And now it starts.

 

What is to be considered a personal attack?

 

What happens when your assumption is wrong (like your last assumption of who started what)?

 

There won't be any assumptions. If we have a case like the one you keep referring to, (or other similar instances from the past), where there are members who have had a succession of posts, with insults or childish antics, it won't matter who started what. We all have a free will to choose not to respond to such things and if a member chooses to partake in the conduct, a warning may be posted in the thread or a PM may be sent to those involved. If ignored, everyone involved will be reprimanded.

 

There is no need to respond. If a member feels that a violation of forum conduct has been made, you can report the post to the staff. Members have recently used this option and the issue was addressed.

 

Then again, if the violation of conduct is severe, or one or more of the members involved have had prior violations, there may be no warning prior to the reprimand, as this thread should be considered, by everyone, as a form of advanced warning.

 

It will be just like in football. One player commits a personal foul and the player who had this done to them commits one back, both players are penalized.

[ImWithStupid]

What do these mean? What is a Signature Rule violation? I didn't know we had a signature rule.

 

Cloaked answered this one. The innapropriate pics apply here too, not just attachments or embedded images.

 

Why are innapropriate pictures worth less than innapropriate language? What constitues either of these? Is in innapropriate language if we bypass the language filter?

 

I would say we'll call them pictures of a sexual nature or those with the intent to alarm or offend or are likely to alarm or offend a reasonable person.

 

Innapropriate language besides including the personal attacks/flame wars would also be those that would, or are likely to, alarm or offend a reasonable person. A good guideline, but not limited to, would be George Carlin's "7 Dirty Words".

 

George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words

 

Probably not going to be a big stickler about the "s" word (word referring to excriment) or the "p" word (word referring to urine), especially depending on the context, but I think "crap" or "pee" would work just fine.

 

Do these points apply to all the forums, or just the On Topic one? Is "Free for All" still a free for all?

 

This goes for all forums. I tried to let the Free For All be used as a place for the bickering and flame wars to be taken, but that option wasn't effective.

 

I don't mean to be a pain, but I think some clarification is necessary to understand this better.

 

I hope your questions were answered.

 

Again these are just guidelines, obviously we aren't able to address every option here, and if something that might not fit in here exactly but seems to be addressed, the member(s) will probably, nearly always, be warned before taking action.

[timesjoke]

No member(s) were personally attacked. I have no idea, for sure, if any members belong to any particular party, or any party at all. I myself am registered Republican (but considering changing to indipendant) but don't consider myself as a part of the Republican Party.

 

Unless we have a member named "Democratic Party" and I meant to attack that particular member, by calling him/her a socialist, it isn't relevant. Also my opinion that much of the Democratic Party has socialist ideals, is just that. My opinion.

 

I was also talking about the people here in Nebraska that turned out for the

Democratic Caucus and voted. I don't think that applies to any member on this forum. At least not to my knowledge.

 

 

Nice try and I guess your attempts to justify your attack on all democrats is a kind of answer though. You see everything you do as justified, so you feel your above the rules your telling everyone else to follow.

 

 

This is why I don't let my mods moderate and post in the threads at the same time, you cannot see past your own opinions to be objective.

 

 

Clearly your attack on all democrats was just that, an attack. We clearly have people who are democrats on the board and your comment could easily offend them.

 

 

But, as I pointed out earlier, even though it can be "seen" as an attack, it was still on topic, and should be allowed, the only problem is it is not allowed by the new rule you made.

 

 

If you used the rule I offered, or made a similar one, this would solve the problem because it makes a distinction between spirited debate and hostile actions that ruin discussions.

 

 

I am just trying to help you have the result your looking for, don't turn your back on a great idea just because you don't like me.

[wez]

Nice try and I guess your attempts to justify your attack on all democrats is a kind of answer though. You see everything you do as justified, so you feel your above the rules your telling everyone else to follow.

 

 

That would be you TJ, not IWS.

 

 

This is why I don't let my mods moderate and post in the threads at the same time, you cannot see past your own opinions to be objective.

 

Do you chain them to the wall at night?

 

 

Clearly your attack on all democrats was just that, an attack. We clearly have people who are democrats on the board and your comment could easily offend them.

 

Their problem.

 

 

But, as I pointed out earlier, even though it can be "seen" as an attack, it was still on topic, and should be allowed, the only problem is it is not allowed by the new rule you made.

 

It is allowed... I thought you once told me that free speech doesn't apply on a private forum? I think IWS and the admins can do whatever they want.

 

 

If you used the rule I offered, or made a similar one, this would solve the problem because it makes a distinction between spirited debate and hostile actions that ruin discussions.

 

No offense, but your idea sucked..

 

 

I am just trying to help you have the result your looking for, don't turn your back on a great idea just because you don't like me.

 

 

Or the result you're looking for? I don't speak for IWS but I think he's made it quite clear he doesn't have a personal problem with you.. It's the opposite..

 

 

"I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you". ~ Some smartass kid.. (Keyword being "smart").

 

 

I'll get you to laugh one of these days TJ...

[timesjoke]

That would be you TJ, not IWS.

 

And this comment is helpful how?

 

Pleast stop being an instigator Wez.

 

 

IWS is the only one here both making personal attacks and also "claiming" he wants to stop personal attacks. He is both the rule setter, and in this case, the rule breaker.

 

 

 

Do you chain them to the wall at night?

 

What exactly is your motivation for comments of this nature Wez?

 

Clearly this in intended as discussion stopping attacks, not to help.

 

This is why there is a difference between what I define as type one attacks and type two.

 

Here we see a type two attack, gentle looking to be sure, but it's only motivation is to demean and belittle someone, and is the most harmful thing you can ever have on a forum because this nasty attitude spreads and perpetuates itself.

 

 

 

Their problem.

 

The same can be said about anyone who gets offended for any reason. They make a choice to be offended.

 

We are talking about the concept of making personal attacks, not if the target of the attack is offended.

 

 

You attack people all the time, it is your only true debate skill, most of us don't really get offended by your nasty attitude but at the same time, your attacks still exist.

 

 

 

It is allowed... I thought you once told me that free speech doesn't apply on a private forum? I think IWS and the admins can do whatever they want.

 

Well, clearly it is allowed for him, but under the new rule he just posted, the rest of us would be violating the rule if we said something similar, and this was my point.

 

I was directly addressing a double standard if IWS feels his personal attacks are okay just because he is a mod and is above the rules he is telling the rest of us to follow.

 

 

 

No offense, but your idea sucked..

 

Why?

 

Just because it directly addresses well poisioning guys like you who spend most of their time making the type 2 attacks?

 

My guideline removes guys like you because it is capable of making a distinction between people interested in spirited debate and those like you just out to stir up trouble and get attention.

 

 

 

 

Or the result you're looking for? I don't speak for IWS but I think he's made it quite clear he doesn't have a personal problem with you.. It's the opposite..

 

His actions do not match up to his virbal claims of not having a problem with me. I don't care if he does not like me to be honest though, all I care about is reasonable execution of his moderating powers. So far he is not very equal, but I know this is based in him trying to both debate and moderate at the same time.

 

 

Even cloaked agreed that moderating and debating at the same time is not a good idea. You cannot maintain objectivity if your down in the trenches.

 

"I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you". ~ Some smartass kid.. (Keyword being "smart").

 

 

I'll get you to laugh one of these days TJ...

 

I laugh all the time Wez, but you just make me shake my head in dissapointment.

 

As I keep saying, you have great ideas, but you wrap them in garbage making it impossible to take you seriously sometimes.

 

 

Take this post you just made for example.

 

Most of it is obviously designed to take shots at me and that motivation is my point. If your motivation is to take shots at me, your most likely doing the wrong thing.

[snafu]

Nice try and I guess your attempts to justify your attack on all democrats is a kind of answer though. You see everything you do as justified, so you feel your above the rules your telling everyone else to follow.

 

 

This is why I don't let my mods moderate and post in the threads at the same time, you cannot see past your own opinions to be objective.

 

 

Clearly your attack on all democrats was just that, an attack. We clearly have people who are democrats on the board and your comment could easily offend them.

 

 

But, as I pointed out earlier, even though it can be "seen" as an attack, it was still on topic, and should be allowed, the only problem is it is not allowed by the new rule you made.

 

 

If you used the rule I offered, or made a similar one, this would solve the problem because it makes a distinction between spirited debate and hostile actions that ruin discussions.

 

 

I am just trying to help you have the result your looking for, don't turn your back on a great idea just because you don't like me.

 

Look TJ don't be so petty. He's talking about personal attacks. The same ones you, eddo, wez and Brothreman were doing, the bickering back and forth. It's pretty obvious what IWS is saying.

[timesjoke]

Look TJ don't be so petty. He's talking about personal attacks. The same ones you, eddo, wez and Brothreman were doing, the bickering back and forth. It's pretty obvious what IWS is saying.

 

I know what he is "trying" to say, but that is not what the new rule covers.

 

 

That is why I gave an example of the rules from my forum to try and help this forum create rules that actually deal with the specific problem of converstaion ending attacks but can allow spirited debates.

 

 

I am not being petty, I am looking at how the new rule leaves more questions than answers and changes nothing when even the rule poster is breaking the rule 5 minutes after he posted it.