by Bob Butler » Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:37 am
I just spent a little time reading the rules of the site. The basically covered only one thing. If someone uses the 7 bad words, starts a flame war, or insults blatantly, the person would be stepped on. No problem with that.
I have come to consider two other policies that are not officially mentioned in the rules, but might be added.
One is if a discussion is started which is well separated from the purpose of the thread. It happens. John acting independently or prompted by the creator of the thread might move the conversation elsewhere. If the Generational Dynamics News thread should be protected in this way, might other threads be protected too?
A similar issue might be listening to a thread creator. Right now, no one but John is posting to my Polyticks thread. That’s nice. If someone comes onto a thread and starts throwing around insults, the moderator might be more inclined to take action to make sure the thread creator’s intent is honored. He might become inclined to honor the request of the creator of a thread.
This would just make what is good for the goose good for the gander. I would just feel better if the censorship of ideas became a respect for the intent and flavor of the initiator of the thread. Going off in a different direction could be done in another thread. Meanwhile, people should feel that if they respond to the words of the author of the thread with ideas rather than insults of flame, the moderator should not act unless the ideas expressed take are really starting a separate conversation. I mean, a post quoting the Bible was recently moved. If the only rule is do not post flame stuff, what is that? Censor the Bible?
Anyway, a thought. Just trying to make the rules match the policy.
I just spent a little time reading the rules of the site. The basically covered only one thing. If someone uses the 7 bad words, starts a flame war, or insults blatantly, the person would be stepped on. No problem with that.
I have come to consider two other policies that are not officially mentioned in the rules, but might be added.
One is if a discussion is started which is well separated from the purpose of the thread. It happens. John acting independently or prompted by the creator of the thread might move the conversation elsewhere. If the Generational Dynamics News thread should be protected in this way, might other threads be protected too?
A similar issue might be listening to a thread creator. Right now, no one but John is posting to my Polyticks thread. That’s nice. If someone comes onto a thread and starts throwing around insults, the moderator might be more inclined to take action to make sure the thread creator’s intent is honored. He might become inclined to honor the request of the creator of a thread.
This would just make what is good for the goose good for the gander. I would just feel better if the censorship of ideas became a respect for the intent and flavor of the initiator of the thread. Going off in a different direction could be done in another thread. Meanwhile, people should feel that if they respond to the words of the author of the thread with ideas rather than insults of flame, the moderator should not act unless the ideas expressed take are really starting a separate conversation. I mean, a post quoting the Bible was recently moved. If the only rule is do not post flame stuff, what is that? Censor the Bible?
Anyway, a thought. Just trying to make the rules match the policy.