I’ve looked over the proposal that was submitted for changing and clarifying and enforcing the rules of the site and I am going to post the full content of the proposal below the fold.
There are a few different points to address. The first is defining what it means to be a prick. I have heard some criticism of using the term but it has been in place for so long, I think we should just stick with it. In the past I defined it as doing something you wouldn’t do if you were a guest at a dinner party. Yeah, you might get drunk and boisterous and argumentative, but you wouldn’t yell slurs at the hosts or tell the other guests they are f*cking pigs. The basic definition still stands. But there are also specific concerns that have been raised. Advising someone to seek psychological help can be a debating device, but if you are making it into a personal attack it is inappropriate. Telling someone they’re a moron is asking for a flamewar. We want to try to keep these threads as civil as possible. But it is only vicious, personal, and sustained attacks that are strictly forbidden. And the advice crew came up with a pretty good set of procedures for dealing with a problem member.
I want to add a little preface to it. If you see two members starting to get into it, there are three things you can do. You can make a comment reminding them to keep it civil. You can issue a ‘2’ warning rating to their comments (or a lower rating depending on egregiousness), and you can contact me or other site administrators either by email or tracking us down on the site.
Please don’t take it all on yourself to resolve a flamewar. Remind, warn, and report.
Site administrators will look into a report and issue a warning if it is deemed the rules have been broken.
A second offense will bring a 24 hour suspension of posting privileges.
A third offense will bring a two-week suspension of posting privileges.
A fourth offense will bring banning.
An appeal of a banning can be made after six months. The administrators will be the judge.
The advisory group suggested setting up a community board that would act as as arbitration body. They put a lot of effort into thinking about how to do this and so I put a lot of consideration into it. I do not believe it is workable and I think it could cause some problems, perhaps more problems that it can solve. The only thing I can be certain of is that I will be here. A board would rely on the retention of its members and their availablity, and it is not something I want to have to worry about maintaining and keeping fully staffed and managing. I’m still open to ideas on arbitration for banned members. But unfortunately I don’t think we can use the system that was suggested. They did a great job trying to make a system that would work and I applaud them for that.
There is one other issue, and that is privacy. Some of us are anonymous, some are semi-anonymous, and some of us go by our real names. Regardless of what status someone has, any effort to disseminate personal information about a member, particularly about someone’s employment, but about anything, without that member’s consent is strictly banned. Sharing of personal email without consent is banned. Doing these things can lead to an immediate permanent banning with no appeal.
You cannot do these things even if it would point out that a member has misrepresented themselves, you cannot do it in revenge, you cannot do it to try to win an argument. If you do it, I will consider the precise circumstances, and banning is the most likely outcome. Even if a member is a public figure or is doing nothing to hide their identity, you cannot use that as an excuse for divulging personal information about them, even if that information is readily available through google. It is totally off limits.
Do not post pictures of people without their consent, and if they complain please notify an administrator and we will erase it.
If, at any time, you feel like you have been indiscreet in posting about yourself or another member please advise me. I will help you resolve your privacy concerns.
Many sites strictly prohibit the deletion of a diary by the author. I do not, but I highly discourage it. It is very poor form to erase a diary that people have commented in. If you ever become disenchanted with the site and decide to leave, please do not ask for your diaries to be deleted. I will delete anything that might create problems for your privacy or future employment, but I will not destroy all the comments or the public record of your history here.
There may be some topics I have forgotten to discuss. So I open the floor for feedback. Based on possible modifications from feedback, I will post these rules in the Frequently Asked Questions or may even create a link for rules that people can use for easy reference.
I want to thank everyone that put time, thought, and effort into trying to make this a better site.
The proposal I worked from is below the fold.
Site Rules of Conduct
It is hereby resolved that the site rules of conduct shall be that vicious ad hominem attacks are forbidden. Vicious is defined as ANY use of profanity in an attack against another member, ANY suggestion that a person needs to seek psychological counseling unless they are asking for personal opinions and interventions from the community, and ANY SUSPECTED outing attempts. This does not mean that all personal criticism or joking is forbidden. It means that if you attack someone in a way that is vicious, as determined by community consensus, you will pay. You also may not engage in any other kind of prickish behavior. Prickish behavior is defined as . . . . [Still need to define this term], as determined by community consensus. Community consensus means the views of the site owner [Executive] and those with administrative privileges, in consultation with the Community Board.
The first offense shall result in a warning from the Community Board
Second offense shall result in a temporary blocking of the member for a period of twenty-four hours in order to have a cooling down period.
Third offense shall result in a temporary blocking of the member for a period of two weeks in order to have a cooling down period. A Community Board email shall be send to the member documenting the third offense and understanding that the next offense report will result in a permanent blocking of their IP address and cancellation of their membership to the site.
Fourth offense will result in a permanent blocking of member’s IP address and membership. A Community Board email shall be send to the member documenting the fourth offense and understanding that their IP address has been permanently blocked, cancellation of their membership to the site with instructions that a request for re-instatement of site membership can occur six (6) months from the date of the fourth offense via an email petition that must be approved by two-thirds majority of the Community Board. The Site Owner [Executive] will review the Board’s findings and make the final determination on the re-instatement request.
A Community Board shall be nominated and elected (in a poll and subject to yearly renewal) by the membership to serve as an arbitration body or to act and represent for the benefit of members as opposed to management, similar to the minority party in congress, and to act on the behalf of the Site Owner [Executive] when he is not present.
The Community Board will consist of nine elected site members. Age or length of membership shall not be limiting factors to election on the Community Board. Maximum length on the Community Board will be 12 months. The Site Owner [Executive] is not eligible to be elected as a Community Board member. The Community Board shall meet weekly and their attendance shall be electronically recorded. The Community Board weekly meeting minutes will be posted on the website and accessible to registered members only.
Six or more Community Board members can reach decisions by single majority vote and be allowed to take immediate binding action up to and including a two week time-out for a repeat offender. Six out of nine Community Board members’ votes (two-thirds majority) are required to recommend permanent banning of a site member and shall be to the Site Owner [Executive] for review or veto. There will be a minimum of ten days cooling off period for the entire Community Board and Site Owner [Executive], which may run concurrently with a two week suspension for the repeat offender.
A Quick Response Team (QRT) comprised of three Community Board members shall be able to recommend temporarily suspend a member from posting for twenty four hours. This action must be recorded and provided to the Site Owner and designated Site System Administrator via email within one (1) hour after the decision has been determined to facilitate the suspension process.
Enforcement of the rules for suspensions shall be strictly enforced. ANY use of profanity in an attack against another member, ANY suggestion that a person needs to seek psychological counseling unless they are asking for personal opinions and interventions from the community, and ANY SUSPECTED outing attempts shall result in an immediate temporary blocking of the member for a period of twenty-four hours and forward to the Site Owner [Executive] and Community Board for an emergency meeting to determine the recommended course of action.
Such rules shall be prominently posted on site so that all are aware.
Seems like a very clear, reasonable and workable conclusion, Boo. I’m glad you didn’t go for setting up some kind of High Court bureaucracy. I’d even not worry about arbitration for banned posters. Four times and out seems as much trouble as it’s worth. Don’t be offended, but people do seem to confuse this place with the Universe at times. It’s only a website, fine as it may be. There are thousands more out there.
The only point that could lead to problems is the “personal info” stuff. But this would only happen if a pol or known media figure came on and made claims about her/himself that just ain’t so. But that’s too remote to worry about right now.
Bottom line is, this is a civil and substantive joint for the most part because that’s its culture. A bunch of detailed rules will never work as well as that. Now if we all try to grow somewhat thicker skins we’ll be ready for merciless assaults on the bad guys.
I guess this means Christopher Hitchens isn’t welcome here 🙂
Thank You, Mr BooMan,
I`ll stick to what I always tried to do as a guest in your house, ie; “Don`t be a prick”. In my opinion it`s worked for the super majority of everyone here. If any one finds, that rule, ambiguous, imagine what more rules will do. The only thing I would suggest, is that, the TU status holders` responsibilities be better explained. Commitees & council members or rulings` groups, will only stir up more confusion. It`s also strange, don`t you think, how many people have commented, as new arrivals here, how they`re happy to find the place so friendly, & that`s with the existing rules in place. Just because some people “cracked” does not mean it`s broken.
I agree, always thought that simple rule sufficed. If anyone doesn’t understand that they probably shouldn’t be here anyway. More rules, more problems. I was afraid having any kind of committee or group would or could cause problems itself. This is still Booman’s site, he’s responsible for the last word.
for ANY site owner trying to get people to behave themselves. You’d think we are all grownups around here, but I have reason to believe we never truly grow up! (After all I am now in my sixties and I wouldn’t claim to be MATURE!
I’m new here (as a member, not to the blog) purposely joined since I cannot link here anymore from dKos, and I want to show some support and contribute to Booman’s blog.
so it’s good to see the rules laid out– sounds reasonable to me.
and am likely to remain so, new rules or whatever.
BTW, regarding the DailyKos “blogroll issue.” I don’t know if everyone is already aware, so will assume not, but now on the DK Personal Page, there is a tab “Blogroll” allowing each registered user to establish a personal blogroll that then appears in the right column, visible to anyone who clicks on your name. A nice feature, and perhaps an ameliorative solution to the pangs of being de-rolled?
Would such a feature be possible here so that users can promote their personal favorite blogs?
Bravo!!!!!! I think you did a good job with all that happened and was suggested. Keep up the great work BooMan!!!!
I want to thank the folks who worked on this last weekend. I appreciate the time, energy, and effort that was put into it. My greatest appreciation is for their level of involvement and concern for the site.
I tend to think of “prick” as something that causes pain like a needle or a plant with jaggers. So I read “don’t be a prick” as don’t cause pain or hurt.
I think specific examples of what is not okay can be helpful for people to better understand the nuances of “don’t be a prick” without getting bogged down in more rules.
Example statements demonstrating being a prick:
A few more ranging in flavor and intensity would complete the range.
Examples of “slurring” the host:
I am not exactly what types of things you consider slurs BooMan, but providing some examples would make it clear.
This one I find problematic:
Advising someone to seek psychological help can be a debating device, but if you are making it into a personal attack it is inappropriate.
It would take two skilled debaters to recognize a debating device and not get upset. Seems to me not many of us are trained in formal debating techniques and tactics, so this would most likely cause unnecessary insult and grief, resulting in misunderstanding and the need to explain which would take away from the discussion in a diary. I would think a skilled debater would have a variety of devices so this one could be eliminated. 😉 I think this should be stated much more unambiguously:
Advising someone to seek psychological help will most likely offend, therefore, don’t.
The sequence for offenses seems pretty clear.
Thanks for seeking members input.
I lurk more than post, so please feel free to ignore; otherwise, have a nice day, and good luck!
I was OK with the old rule, but this should work as well.
..you can contact me or other site administrators..
Can you list the administrators?
for now let’s keep it as me, Steven, or clammyc.
Good calls, IMO. Basically, all of this seems like it should fall under “don’t be a prick”, but it’s probably necessary to lay it out a little clearer for those who don’t understand what being a prick is.
I quite like that you both give ample warning before banning and provide a method of appeal. I know a lot of people probably find this to be a little excessive, but making it clear that there are plenty of ways not to be entirely, utterly banned if you are a reasonable person is IMO a good way to alleviate some tensions that always arise over the issue of banning.
Frankly, I find banning really distasteful, and I sense that you do to. It should be an utter last resort when someone simply will not behave in a socially appropriate way, IMO.
I can also see why a formal arbitration body (including community board) would be hard to accomplish — I think it would be a cool thing if it could be made to work, but the practical level of it would be really difficult. Having nine people ready to deal with this stuff is a high bar; having three in a pinch is probably too low a bar, unless the guidelines are really, really clear (which is hard to hash out in itself).
The rules are good. Especially regarding privacy.
is if I am in deep shit yet.
cuz all these damn sites are taking so long to download now, I need to “no” if I am persona au gratin.
I love persona au gratin with baked ham!
It would take more than a few martinis to get me to ingest that. I’ll stick with the spaghetti.
Unless, of course, it’s Pasta Putinesca.
not my idea of a good sauce base.
macaroni with my martooni?
I think those are all fairly good rules. Hey, at least you have them. I kind of wonder what brought them on. I’m sure there was a lengthy and fair process going on when Markos dropped you from his blogroll. Well, if it takes experience to make you better…
Philip Shropshire
http://www.threeriversonline.com
PS: I think you were dropped because you wrote about AIPAC and whether members of the jewish delegation of a certain house committee were objective when it came to Israel…perfectly appropriate questions by the way that a vigorous online press should be asking. And I’m sure, in an alt universe, where there were 10 Iraqi sunnis sitting on a US house committee you would be asking the same questions.