»nintendo64 Posted March 8, 2004 Report Posted March 8, 2004 Rules:1) Treat others with respect.2) Do not make flame or spam threads Suggestions:1) If you are asked to prove what you said as a fact, please include your sources, so we can avoid the flaming. Suggestions/Opinions/Etc... Reply here. So we can all define our own rules for a civilized debate. -nintendo64
BG Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 How about not starting dozens of useless threads because you were banned? I think that's a good way to avoid flameage.
Yupa Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 how about not making posts about things that are already given
Dav Posted February 9, 2005 Report Posted February 9, 2005 can we add no insulting other posters personally if they disagree with your views?
»nintendo64 Posted February 9, 2005 Author Report Posted February 9, 2005 Well that rule is in place. The problem is i usually apply it, when the insults go out of hand, so far, they are "controlled", but if you feel you've been offended you can always leave a PM, and i will give a warning to the offender. Now, thinking about the rules, i will have a chat with Aileron, to see if we can agree to a new set, or keep some or these ones, personally the idea was for people to suggest rules, but nobody ever did.
Aileron Posted September 1, 2005 Report Posted September 1, 2005 Alright, it seems the "get everyone to suggest rules" idea didn't pan out. It also seems that Nintendo64 and I never made the time to have that chat, and it seems this forum doesn't have any rules. I guess the thing to do then is to do the opposite...I am going to come up with a list of rules, and you guys can tell me which ones don't work. 1) All SSForum.net rules apply here. 2) Treat all other forum members with respect 2a) This includes !@#$%^&*uming that the other person doesn't have all the facts...!@#$%^&*ume the other person is atleast as knowledgable on the subject as you are unless they prove otherwise. 2b) To go along with 2a...make sure you have a reasonable amount of knowledge on the subject. If you don't, just don't make any big statements. 3) Treat world leaders and political figures with respect. Note on 3) This rule does not necessarily apply to figures who do not hold, never held, have never ran or are currently running in election, and do not have a reasonable chance of ever holding a political, religious, military, business, journalistic, legal, governmental or international position. (Basically, if the target is a celebrity, only a celebrity, and nothing but a celebrity, insult away!) Note on the note on 3) A celebrity running for political office is considered a political candidate and thus 3 DOES apply. Other note on 3) Terrorists don't fall under rule 3 either 4) Treat nations and races as a whole with respect 5) Treat businesses and organizations with respect 6) Do not post wild conspiracy theories or libel. Not-so-wild conspiracy theories are allowed. The definition of libel can be found in any dictionary. The differance between a "wild" consipiracy theory and a "not-so-wild" would be that a "not-so-wild" theory has somewhat respectable (though admittingly not complete) evidence supporting it. Thus "More than one man killed JFK" would be allowed and "President Chirac has an extraterrestrial alien in his basement" is not. 7) Don't cite a fictional source. Do not discuss religion here. Its never wise to talk about politics or religion. Given the topic of this forum, we have to talk about politics, but the discussion of religion would only need to unnessessary flamefests. The impacts of religion on politics would still be allowed though. Suggestions: 1) Site sources when asked or when you make an outrageous claim2) Try to keep you posts shorter...not only is there less to read, but it decreases the chances that you make a statement that gets picked apart. It also helps ensure that your more important points stand out. Punishment 2-8 merely results in your post being edited, and I'm not going to count how many times I have to edit a certain person's posts. Threads will be locked if things get out of hand. Threads will be deleted if things get out of hand and the contents of the post become somehow obscene or if there is no political meat on the topic whatsoever. However, punishments for SSForum rules will be dealt as SSForum rules.
Aileron Posted September 1, 2005 Report Posted September 1, 2005 Alright, I'd like some suggestions of what you people want removed or added to these rules before I make them final.
Raem Posted September 1, 2005 Report Posted September 1, 2005 I don't like rules 3 and 5, but I don't really post on this forum, just enjoy reading it, so I guess my input is invalid..I'll go away now
Aileron Posted September 1, 2005 Report Posted September 1, 2005 Respect doesn't mean "don't criticise", it just means make criticisms in a mature and quasi-professional manner.
SeVeR Posted September 3, 2005 Report Posted September 3, 2005 I don't like 3,5,8. I don't have any respect for GW Bush so does this mean i cannot talk about him honestly? Respect is earnt not given away. As for religion, why can't we talk about it? In many countries religion and politics are intertwined as you well know. Bush tries hard to appeal to Christian voters and i wouldn't mind seeing a discussion on exactly how he is catering for the needs of Christians (possibly above other religions); And what about a discussion on how Islam affects Middle East Politics or the situation in Israel or what about Northern Irelands religious tensions, i could go on... If you're worried about "unnecessary flamefests" then that is covered in Rule 2.
MonteZuma Posted September 3, 2005 Report Posted September 3, 2005 I agree w/ sever and raem. Do we need to respect Mugabe? How can we discuss terrorism without discussing religion sometimes? Fwiw, I don't think we need rules....just common sense.
Aileron Posted September 3, 2005 Report Posted September 3, 2005 As I said - the religious issues that have an effect on politics would still be allowed, thus all of the subjects you cited would still be allowed. The only thing not allowed would be a purely religious debate on a subject completely irrelevant to politics. I agree with SeVeR on the fact that respect is earned and not given. However, world leaders have earned their respect. Their jobs are not easy and the responsabilities they have are great. If these responsabilities were forced on any one of our shoulders at the current stage in our lives, they would break our minds and our spirits. I mean, it almost stands as common knowledge that most President's hair suddenly goes grey during their terms. They are professional people who have worked harder than you think to get the positions they are entrusted with. At very least, a democratically elected official deserves respect in order to respect the judgement of the millions of people who elected them. This is also why I didn't make the rule apply to celebreties. They have power over people who listen to them, but no responsability. I'd also apply considerable leniency on those who are disrespecting tyrants. The reason for 5 is that people work for those organizations, and not just the big shots in the corner offices on the top floor. For example, the tobacco industry have become a very easy target lately. However, what people forget is that most of the industry is made up of farmers who put in a very hard day's work each day. These people deserve respect because they live a very hard life, and it does not do them justice to have someone portray them as a whole industry as greedy s!@#$%^&*. Respect doesn't mean "agree with" or "never criticise". It just means that one elevates his or her language above the insults thrown around in elementary school. It means using "President Bush" instead of "Dubya". Doing this would not prevent your points from getting accrossed, unless your point is pure emotion and anger. The fact that somebody disagrees with you would not warrant disrespectfull behavior, and the fact the a leader would base his actions on the wishes of many people who disagree with you would not warrant disrespectfull behavior either.
Aileron Posted September 3, 2005 Report Posted September 3, 2005 Yes, we do need rules...for those who lack common sense and then go whining about their posts being deleted. If everyone had common sense, who would indeed be right.
Aileron Posted September 13, 2005 Report Posted September 13, 2005 Oh...I didn't include a banning policy...same as ssforums except breaking politics rules counts for 1/5th of an ssforum rule...(they are easy to break...I myself have gotten out of hand at times)
Bak Posted September 13, 2005 Report Posted September 13, 2005 So we can't critisize world leaders except terrorists? This leaves the definition of a terrorist in the hands of the moderator; lots of people would consider Bush a terrorist for what he's doing in the Middle East. This is one of the beuties of free speech: say what you want without a subjective party that can censor you. If people use names they'd use in "elementary school", then their argument will sound like it's coming from someone in elementary school. Same goes for businesses. Same goes for wild consipricy theories or libel. No one will believe you and their opinion of you, and whatever you may later say, will be demolished. This is deterrence enough. For example if our friend spin posted something about gas stations running out of fuel across england, we'd be less likely to believe him, even though it may be true. I can see why you'd not want to discuss religion, but such arguments, when they don't involve politics, are very dry and I doubt we need a rule to limit them.
Aileron Posted September 14, 2005 Report Posted September 14, 2005 A defintion of terrorist is unnecessary. The rule doesn't say to disrespect terrorists, it said respect people who have certain positions of responsability. The subpoint only stated that the group "terrorists" do not fall under that catagory. To take your example, if you consider Bush to be a terrorist and a world leader, then you should respect him because he is a world leader. !@#$%^&*uming one considers Bin Laden to be a terrorist and only a terrorist, then you don't have to respect him. You can if you want to, you just don't have to. However, if he managed to get nominated and ran for some political position, then you would have to respect him for being a political candidate. However, I will humor you and define a terrorist as one who specifically targets and kills civilians during peacetime with the intention of making a political point. Rules aren't necessary to identify idiots - you are correct in that they usually identify themselves. Rules have to be in place because idiots may get out of line to the point where they have to be disciplined for the good of everyone else, and it is unreasonable to punish someone without defining boundaries in advanced.
Bak Posted September 14, 2005 Report Posted September 14, 2005 By your definition, we are currently in a "war on terror", so bin laden is no longer labeled a terrorist. Murderers would also be classified as terrorists. If you take out the peacetime requirement, Truman would be a terrorist.. But I see what you mean: a terrorist should not be considered a world leader unless he holds political office. Although bin laden is a business leader so maybe we need to respect him(according to the rules): "Bin Laden also invested in business ventures, such as al-Hajira, a construction company that built roads throughout Sudan, and Wadi al-Aqiq, an agricultural corporation that farmed hundreds of thousands of acres of sorghum, gum arabic, sesame and sunflowers in Sudan's central Gezira province." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden).
»SD>Big Posted September 14, 2005 Report Posted September 14, 2005 you guys have gotten COMPLETELY out of hand. nin's first post is all you need. anything else is overmoderation... why is it when the political forums actualy picks up that you people feel the need to add more rules and moderate. it's going well, and nothing has gotten out of hand. RELAX YOU TIGHTWADS i hope swift reads this. dude, tell your mods to relax!!!
Aileron Posted September 14, 2005 Report Posted September 14, 2005 First off I'm the only mod here so you should use the singular tense. Secondly these are PROPOSED rules...and as I said, I intentionally made too many and too strict because the first proposal was too few and too lenient. The purpose of this thread is to chisel them down into whatever is reasonable.
Aileron Posted September 14, 2005 Report Posted September 14, 2005 Sorry for the double post I guess it would be wise to take 8 out...and change 6 to just "do not post libel". 2 is necessary because its really an ssforum rule 3 is necessary because you can't truly respect a forum member if you disrespect the person he or she voted for 4 is necessary because you can't respect a forum member if you disrespect the nation that forum member belongs to...racism is really an ssforum rule as well. 5 isn't really necessary I guess...but I figure being respectfull of others is always a wise course to follow. I mean, I might be imposing on solely my experience (hence why I wanted everyone else's judgement)...but I find that the statement "Aileron, ur ignorant" is less insulting than "All white Catholic American Republicans who voted for Bush are ignorant", atleast in the former case the poster took the time to single me out as a person rather than dismiss me as part of a group.
MonteZuma Posted September 15, 2005 Report Posted September 15, 2005 Ail. I can see that you want to introduce rules that ensure the quality and sensibility of the forum, but I don't think you should. I disagree with most points you raise. Imo, people should be able to post pretty much anything they want about anybody or group they want. The 'rules' should be similar to what we see in most zones. No racials. No harr!@#$%^&*ment. No spamming. No totally gross or pornographic text or images. Basically the original rules were sufficient. To summarise my view: Chill.
Aileron Posted September 24, 2005 Report Posted September 24, 2005 Alright, no yays and a sh1tload of nays...I guess the old rules stay. I will however put 3,4,5 in the "recommended" column.
Aceflyer Posted April 27, 2008 Report Posted April 27, 2008 Suggestions:1) If you are asked to prove what you said as a fact, please include your sources, so we can avoid the flaming. May we upgrade this to an actual rule (not just a suggestion)? Would be even better if people are just required to include sources when making any claims that aren't already widely known as fact. For example, saying that President Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States wouldn't require a citation, but saying that Obama told Clinton "You're likeable enough, Hillary." would need a citation like so [1].
Aileron Posted April 27, 2008 Report Posted April 27, 2008 Well, if this were a formal blog, that would be a good rule. Since it isn't I'd say it would have to be not widely known, and would have to be inflammatory. I don't want this rule being used to annoy people by those who won't accept minor points. Your example would be widely know enough to not require citation though.
Recommended Posts