Open call for Board Member and Moderator positions in Coin Return. More information here.
You can now pre-register your username on Coin Return. Check out the instructions here.
Forum Rules Ratification poll is live. Please vote. Open until March 25th.
Coin Return Forum Rules - Open for Feedback until Feb. 26th
minor incident
publicly subsidized!privately profitable!Registered User, Transition Team regular
publicly subsidized!privately profitable!Registered User, Transition Team regular
Hello!
As promised, today we're presenting the first draft of the Forum Rules. The Rules team (led by @Gnizmo and supported by @Vixx @smof @Hahnsoo1 and myself) have been hard at work drafting a document that aims to serve as an extension of our Forum Values and Code of Conduct, by offering a sensible interpretation of those documents with more granularity and specific situational guidance. The aim was for this to be both a conversational document that reads casually, but covers a great deal, while also ensuring that there are bulleted lists and summaries for important or complex sections to make it something that's easy to skim and get the gist of without having to devote your entire afternoon to going through it.
You'll find the Rules broken up into several sections by topic. In most of these sections you'll see paragraphs begin with bolded statements that generally sum up the intent of each section. The idea is that you could simply read the bolded statements and move on, but if you're someone who craves more specificity or examples or context, you can read the rest of the paragraph to get exactly that.
We're leaving this open for feedback in the form of comments here in this thread. Please feel free to let us know what parts you like, what parts you think need work, etc. Be as specific as possible in your feedback, as all feedback will be used to make any necessary adjustments for the second draft of the Rules. This thread will remain open for feedback until 10pm EST on February 26th.
Lastly, please be respectful of each other in this discussion. Assume positive intent from your fellow posters, and imagine each other complexly -- as real, living individuals who also want the best for this community, even if you think their concerns are not something you see eye to eye on. We're receptive to everyone's concerns, and we'll get much more to work with if we're not at each others' throats over minutiae.
Forum Rules (Google Docs link): https://docs.google.com/document/d/17K5KFGouFDa3_XU-lToWB7eU3kl1-vwfZTGqKsfO_fI/edit?usp=sharing
Full text of the rules will be in the following reply to this OP.
As promised, today we're presenting the first draft of the Forum Rules. The Rules team (led by @Gnizmo and supported by @Vixx @smof @Hahnsoo1 and myself) have been hard at work drafting a document that aims to serve as an extension of our Forum Values and Code of Conduct, by offering a sensible interpretation of those documents with more granularity and specific situational guidance. The aim was for this to be both a conversational document that reads casually, but covers a great deal, while also ensuring that there are bulleted lists and summaries for important or complex sections to make it something that's easy to skim and get the gist of without having to devote your entire afternoon to going through it.
You'll find the Rules broken up into several sections by topic. In most of these sections you'll see paragraphs begin with bolded statements that generally sum up the intent of each section. The idea is that you could simply read the bolded statements and move on, but if you're someone who craves more specificity or examples or context, you can read the rest of the paragraph to get exactly that.
We're leaving this open for feedback in the form of comments here in this thread. Please feel free to let us know what parts you like, what parts you think need work, etc. Be as specific as possible in your feedback, as all feedback will be used to make any necessary adjustments for the second draft of the Rules. This thread will remain open for feedback until 10pm EST on February 26th.
Lastly, please be respectful of each other in this discussion. Assume positive intent from your fellow posters, and imagine each other complexly -- as real, living individuals who also want the best for this community, even if you think their concerns are not something you see eye to eye on. We're receptive to everyone's concerns, and we'll get much more to work with if we're not at each others' throats over minutiae.
Forum Rules (Google Docs link): https://docs.google.com/document/d/17K5KFGouFDa3_XU-lToWB7eU3kl1-vwfZTGqKsfO_fI/edit?usp=sharing
Full text of the rules will be in the following reply to this OP.
Hell, New Jersey, it said on the letter. Delivered without comment. So be it!
minor incident on
+2
Posts
This is not and is not intended to be an exhaustive list of behaviors that are unwelcome on our forums. Instead, these rules will give illustrative, concrete, and digestible explanations/examples of the behaviour we expect to see in this community. These rules are:
Derived from our Values and Code of Conduct;
Meant to be revised as new areas of concern arise;
Designed to be able to evolve over time as the community does; and
A manual for how to have a comfortable, stress-free time on the forums without accidentally running afoul of the rules.
Equity and Inclusion
Do not use hate speech or slurs. This is true at all times in all spaces on the forums, but especially when speaking about or to a fellow community member. Yes, some slurs are in the process of being reclaimed and thus it can be difficult to know what constitutes a slur that breaks this rule. We ask that you use your best judgment in greyer cases, but given that the forum is an exclusively online, written form of communication, the harshest slurs are not allowed at all. This makes enforcement easier while maximising comfort.
Do not intentionally misgender people, whether they are a member of the forums or not. This extends to celebrities, politicians, and other people of note. For fellow forum members, you are required to use the appropriate pronouns as they have stated them in their profile's pronoun field. Good faith effort is all that is required if you do accidentally make a mistake (or perhaps did not know what someone's correct pronouns were), which includes editing posts with corrections when requested.
All members of this community will respect, validate, and acknowledge the lived experiences of all marginalised groups. We can all stand to learn something about our own biases by making room for the viewpoints of those who do not look or sound like us. Different normals and different truths can and should co-exist. We are real people behind these avatars, and we ask that everyone consider if the point they want to make is worth treating someone like a thought experiment or dismissing their experience out of hand, just because it is not the same as yours.
By extension, remember that marginalised groups are not monoliths. Even topics painful to these communities need to be discussed respectfully at times. We can and will make space for both of these factors. The personal story and the data live side by side as two pieces of the same puzzle. We can be heading in the right direction while still being very far away from it.
Some subcommunities on this board will have threads to discuss their own lives in a more casual way. Every thread on this forum is open for any member to participate in unless there is a good reason to kick a member out of the discussion. Respect the space, which does mean respecting the requests made by the subcommunity posting in that space. Imagine how you would walk into a room full of people who don't look like you in real life and tone your posts accordingly. Going into these spaces looking to pick a fight or to pursue a grudge from another thread will not be tolerated.
Trolling, Baiting, and Filibustering
Do not make inflammatory posts simply to get a reaction from your fellow members. This is not engaging within the spirit of our Values, Code of Conduct, or even simply being a kind person. It disrupts the flow of conversation, making it impossible to serve as a third space for all. Do not call out people for trolling in the thread. It will simply take more oxygen out of the room. We all know ignoring a problem will not make it go away, but poking a wound won’t make it heal faster. Please report the post to the mods when you believe this is happening.
Remember that communication is not a one-way street, and the responsibility for effective communication sits with all parties. You are as responsible for what you say and how you say it as everyone else is for what or how they say something back in turn. Further, we do not tolerate people repeatedly walking up to the line simply to elicit a response from someone. Intentionally pushing for someone to over-react will lead to moderator action . This can include excessive snark, condescension, or mockery over topics that are known to be sensitive. Deliberately and repeatedly escalating an interaction via deception, pedantry, or splitting hairs will result in moderator action.
We also invite everyone to share their opinions. We are aware we will often disagree across multiple fronts, which is the purpose of this forum. However, continuously restating your opinion in ways that are clearly not attempting to better communicate, or only expanding on your point while significantly raising the temperature of the discussion will lead to moderator action. Spoiling for a fight on a specific topic while making it difficult or impossible for others to have parallel conversations is not acceptable.
This is not meant to allow members to dogpile others out of a conversation. We will not reward attempts to chase people out of a thread. If you find the conversation around someone who is being dogpiled to be exhausting then you are encouraged not to engage in the conversation or to help it move on. By engaging with a point you are implicitly inviting a response.
Summary for this section:
Harassment
We register for the forums so that we can interact and post on the forums. We did not register on the forums for contact beyond this. Registration on any online community means only that you are putting your hand up to interact with and within that community, not beyond it.
If you do attempt to contact someone outside the forums, behave in accordance with their response: if they do not welcome contact, cease immediately, and if they do welcome contact, then proceed. The intentions behind your contact (even for a genuine apology) are irrelevant. Best practice would be to ask before making contact offsite in any case, as we do not always know how others feel about us and sometimes interactions can be unknowingly one-sided. This is the nature of online, written communication.
Contacting someone outside of the forums when you already know they would not or do not want you to do so may result in moderator action.
Do not follow someone around from thread to thread just to disagree with them. Yes, it is inevitable that we will share spaces if we share interests, and sometimes this means that people could be disagreeing with each other across a range of topics/threads. But there is a difference between this and posting in shared threads to specifically hash out a disagreement with a specific poster. Be aware of this difference.
In line with our values of Safety and Empathy, if someone has disengaged with you for whatever reason, please respect that. Everyone is entitled to pull the ripcord and step away from any conversation that occurs on this forum. Do not pursue them to continue a conversation they have clearly decided they no longer want to participate in.
Summary for this section:
Sharing Our Third Space
There are huge limitations to old-fashioned, text-based web forums as a form of communication. Keep in mind at all times that we all - whether as a poster or as a reader - have to fill in a lot of gaps. It is perfectly appropriate to ask for more context if you are unsure, as we do not have the luxury of body language or tone. Please keep in mind also that English is not everyone's first language.
Do not bring off site fights onto the forum. If someone’s behavior is so egregious you feel it must be addressed, we ask that you raise it privately with a moderator. If we are unknowingly conversing with a serial killer then yes, this might require follow-up action at a moderator level. If someone is being an asshole elsewhere but not on the forums, then consider using the ignore feature instead. We have too many members with too many overlapping interests to not encounter each other in other spaces.
Do not engage in name-calling. In some cases it could be intended to be humorous, but remember also that there are eyes on your interaction that may not understand all the nuanced relationships and connections that naturally emerge in the community. It runs a much higher risk of raising the temperature in the conversation than it does the possible benefit of a good giggle. If you are feeling the urge to engage in name-calling during a heated discussion, consider stepping away or using the ignore feature. In general, use the ignore feature as necessary to avoid putting yourself in such a position.
Start from a position of good faith, both on your part and those of the others in the conversation with you. Consider that what might seem straight-up outlandish and absurd to you is likely being sincerely held by the person sharing it. You're better off taking them on good faith and finding out later they were just kidding/joking/etc, rather than the inverse. Any behaviour that aims to belittle, demean, dehumanise, or humiliate a poster will result in moderator action.
Sharing our space therefore includes, but is not limited to:
Forum Posting Etiquette
Use and adhere to thread tags responsibly and respectfully. Mods will simply delete any tags or parts of tags that violate this rule. Some deviation from tags is expected whenever any group of humans interact, but there is a point where having a brief off-topic tangent evolves into a clear violation of the tag. So while we cannot ask people to stick to absolutes, we can ask people to make a good faith effort to adhere to tags as much as they can.
Please also respect the tags that define the scope and tone of threads. Don’t spend pages emotionally venting in a thread that is attempting to logically quantify a problem in a specific way. Please don’t go into a discussion about the emotional impact of a contentious issue only to try to make the conversation all about numbers. People have different capacities for engaging in this manner and we expect our members to respect that.
Please provide context for any links you share, where appropriate. This may vary from thread to thread. For example, context would be mandatory for external links in threads about Politics and Current Events, however context is not normally required in threads that are effectively a collection of links to YouTube videos. Please use your best judgment, and if someone requests context for a link you’ve posted, we ask that you oblige. Please limit yourself to only quoting the applicable portions of the text of any article or essay you link to, and allow others to follow the link to read the full text. This ensures traffic goes to the source for any writing that we find valuable enough to use in our discussions, and it reduces the likelihood of unwanted outside attention and accusations of content.
A few more guidelines for fitter, happier posting:
Rules Enforcement, Moderators, and the Decisions that Follow
Moderators are the ones enforcing our rules. They have volunteered and been chosen by the community to be trusted with this power for a reason. Our moderators have agreed to carry the burden of enforcing our rules so that we get to enjoy what this community has to offer. We ask that you sit back and enjoy that luxury and leave moderation up to the moderators.
Please report and move on. This is especially true if you think someone is acting in bad faith. Ignoring a bully or a troll does not magically make them go away, but engaging with their bad faith arguments does give them what they want. Report and move on. You will be able to get feedback on your reports to let you know how it was viewed by the moderation team.
When reporting a post, try to imagine a moderator would be coming into the thread with zero context. An ideal report:
The better formed your reports are, the less likely your concerns will be left high and dry. Rest assured that any action taken in response to a report is visible to the entire moderator team.
Moderator decisions should not be openly questioned in the body of the thread, as there are other established pathways to contest a moderator's call. Openly questioning the moderator's decision will derail all other conversation which can violate our values of connectedness, equity, and accountability. We expect our members to take ownership of their mistakes and move forward. Repeatedly ignoring warnings will lead to an action being treated more severely than normal.
We understand moderator actions can be upsetting, especially when you feel like it does not align with our Values. In these situations avoid publicly berating a decision or a member of the moderator team on the forum, and refrain from doing so privately to a member of the moderator team. If you feel the rules have been applied unfairly, we encourage you to appeal the decision.
Your first option is to consider engaging respectfully with the moderator who sent you the original warning. It could be a matter of misreading perspectives, intent, or word choice; again, this is a written form of communication and these things are extremely possible.
If direct moderator dialogue is not a safe option (or if the outcome of the dialogue was not satisfactory), you can choose to make a formal Appeal [PROCESS TBD]. Appeal decisions are final. Complaining about Appeal decisions on the forums will not alter the result and may, depending on the circumstance, result in moderator action.
Should you feel a moderator is simply unfit for Coin Return we ask you to [MOD REMOVAL PROCESS TBD].
Summary for this section:
FAQ
To be determined after feedback
I have two small points of feedback:
Fully on-board with the sentiment being expressed here, but it's slightly unclear to me what the actual rule here is. That might be by design, to give mods part of the rules they can point to when making a call in situations like this that are a little murky, but I thought it was worth saying.
There is a lot of space between "serial killer" and "asshole." It might be beneficial to have a less outlandish example of when it might be a good idea to report someone for off-site behavior to give better guidance about this.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
So the first part is tricky, and a part I think no one was fully happy on the final wording of. The idea is to make sure people can't shut down a conversation offering only their insight because there is a spectrum of opinions in there. I am relatively open to deleting it, but I remember concern around that from the Values and CoC discussions. I am very open to making that more clear in some way.
The second one is solid feedback. I tend towards the absurd because I have to be cautious in my day job not to accidentally use someone's trauma as a joke. Something more realistic is definitely a doable thing.
Yeah, like I said I like the sentiment and I think that is a thing worth having in the rules. Wording might need to be reconsidered is all; for instance I think your response just there was much clearer about what kind of behavior you're looking to curtail.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I do have a question/comment about large images. I think if we're going to have restrictions (or semi-restrictions), we should define what they are. I haven't had a problem with slow loading of thread content in years, and I don't know if this is because everyone is posting reasonably-sized images, or I just have been lucky to have fast connection speeds. Point being, I legit have no idea the point at which images I'm posting might be "too large", especially if the image hosting system we use might be auto-scaling anything uploaded anyway.
I do appreciate mentioning that large or numerous images should be spoilered. That's always been a pet peeve of mine.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
my only nits to pick:
i would prefer reporting of offsite behavior be restricted to things like harassment of other CR users. i don't think it's a good idea to open the door to moralizing about other people's behavior if it doesn't involve this space. some stuff may feel clear cut, but the majority of the time it is not
i'd like to see "graphic content" in the spoiler section explicitly include both visual and text
in reports, i'd like to include it's not the place to hurl abuse at moderators or other users. you may think the person you're reporting is an asshole but the report function is not your loophole to call them names
I definitely wouldn't want you to delete the part about shutting down conversation, because I think it's an important line to walk and bears calling out explicitly. I think the vague nature of the rule befits the fuzzy nature of the line, so I wouldn't worry too much about. The second you give a clear line, you give people a thing to try to cynically approach without crossing, and when you ding them on it, they will try to rules lawyer you.
As far as the bit on off-site behavior, I suppose you could go a bit less outlandish, but I also feel that the line for off-site behavior that should get an otherwise-behaving member of the community in trouble should be exceedingly high. Like, "member of the Proud Boys" or "is found having child porn". (One thing that I think should be relevant is if someone admits off-site that they're deliberately trying to troll the forums, as that as basically off-site evidence applied to on-site behavior.)
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
That last bit is a little concerning, because the definition of what could put the site at risk in the "current sociopolitical climes" is very debatable. Some could make the argument that openly opposing the current administration or their policies puts us at risk of being shut down, in certain hypothetical scenarios. Maybe instead just include a bucket rule about "illegal activity"?
I kind of agree that the last clause is kind of unnecessary, and would potentially cease to be relevant in four years if a miracle occurs and we return to sanity. The point is made without it, and it kind of adds some ambiguity to what is otherwise a very clear rule.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
I can definitely see a point about that line sticking out. I think illegal activities does not fully encompass the full scope of what we need to be careful about. Actions that might not be, or might not be seen as illegal but could cause legal problems is something we want to avoid. No one is going to face criminal prosecution for, to use a relevant example, posting about a sorority's secret handshake. Website will see letters from lawyers follow by further legal action if it is up. The larger scope is to hopefully capture all of what that might encompass.
I fought hard for this but @minor incident kept deleting it. Talk to him.
Take it sleazy
I will not endure this slander
TAKE
IT
SLEAZY
That's the kind of loophole you can shove aircraft carriers through, and needs some revision.
Yeah, like this is something that actually happened in recent memory, so it's not exactly a hypothetical.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
There is a file size limit for attaching images to your post (e.g. with copy/paste), the UI will block it. When I want to post a screenshot I do a Windows print screen which gives you a drag selector, and then just paste it in there, that's by far the easiest method.
img tags don't have a file size limit though, and they will be downloaded by anyone who visits the page, so basic internet etiquette about that still applies. I'm not sure if we can control that or not.
I actually do have a question about that.
A long long time ago a person added me to their twit follower/follows list and either forgot or didn't care then started lighting me up with some ragey twonks, mostly directed at my forum posts because they didn't like my opinion on something, and I did have to report it to tube (which resulted in a temp ban).
Is stuff like this still basically "no don't do that, you could get banned/tempbanned/etc on CR" or is this a gray area where CR doesn't want to get involved?
for a less extreme example than serial murderer
let's say pkmoutl decided to come back after CR was launched instead of a few years ago. for reference he posted a story bragging about sexually assaulting someone back when posting slurs and "ironic racism" was the culture du jour, disappeared for a long time and then started posting again in '22
the response at the time when he came back due to the lack of moderation and updated rules at the time was to remind him of that and ask if he was going to address it before starting to try to post again, any time he posted, and eventually he got banned
now it was relatively simple to find the receipts at that time, but if we're on CR and PA Forums are shut down this would then be considered an "off site fight"
would a member or group of members be able to bring testimony of pkmoutl's previous posting history to the moderation team (assuming non on the moderation team had direct memory) to have action taken?
With the caveat that I didn't have a hand in writing the proposed rules in this thread, that'd be an easy "no don't do that" from me, especially if they're specifically dragging forum behaviour onto it. It'd also fall under the direct contact wording in the proposed rules, especially if they're raging at you about those posts.
My issue with the wording is that if you were hanging out both here and over on the ten-times-fancier Dime Carnival forums, someone here showing up there with some "get a load of this asshole" posts wouldn't necessarily constitute offsite harassment when it very much does.
In the example you're probably referring to, I would say they directly contacted the person and I think the spirit of the rules covers that. In fact the summary at the end clearly states: "Pursuing people outside the space in which they have opted to participate constitutes harassment, and it will not be tolerated." To me, this doesn't mean you get to play the "I'm not touching you" game just because you're following someone around and beefing with them but not specifically addressing them directly. I honestly don't see a lot of technicalities for someone to hide behind in this, but I'm open to people's thoughts on it, obviously.
That said, if someone wants to go on their personal twitter or their facebook and rant about "this annoying shithead I got into an argument with on a forum" to their own friends without naming you or pointing out anything particularly identifying, then... maybe folks just have to accept that everyone's a villain in someone's eyes.
oh he didn't like tag me or anything, but it did pop up for me to see, but I guess like technically it counts
Then the wording needs to be clarified, because it's almost entirely focused specifically on direct person-to-person contact to a degree that it's easy to interpret the rule, as written, to only be concerned with that. It wouldn't take a lot of gymnastics to walk away from that section thinking "well if I contact my target's professional colleagues and not them the forum can't touch me." I don't think this is a "the spirit of the rules is sufficient" kind of thing.
So for the first point I believe when signing up for the forums you have to explicitly agree to following the Code of Conduct. The rules do call out being subordinate to the CoC as well. It feels a bit redundant in light of all of that to call it out again explicitly to me. I am not against it, but we have a lot of places that is built in.
I would say the spirit of the rules would say yes you can bring that up for the second one. If we can't chase rapists off this forum then I dunno what we are doing here. Everyone on the TT, in my experience, is dedicated to not having anything like that shit anywhere near our new home.
"Regarding the posting of hate imagery:
Because the world is a stupid and awful place, many tweets or images discussing stuff happening in the world right now contain pictures of things like swastikas and confederate flags and other symbols of hate and bigotry. These images can be upsetting to some, so we ask that if you need to post such imagery, you spoiler tag and throw up a note that there's a swastika or whatever involved.
Nobody is going to get banned because there was a confederate flag in the back corner of a picture they posted of a Trump rally or anything, this is just a request to act courteously towards people who might be upset by such pictures."
There's a rule in the new rules for not posting "triggering content without spoilers", but it doesn't really delve into the hate symbol example specifically, and the D&D rule was put in place because people were accidentally putting hate symbolism in front of people when reporting on Bad Things.
I don't think the new rule is explicit enough to prevent such accidental damage going forward.
If I go on my tiny, essentially no following Bluesky and post “man, someone on the boards really pissed me off today” then that’s ok because it’s nonspecific and I’m yelling at clouds.
If I name the person on public social media, that’s kind of a gray area but shouldn’t be an issue as long as the person is not getting directly contacted by myself or the people I’m talking to. If someone does then contact the person then I probably need a stern talkin’ to from the mods.
If I actually post at their handle angrily, which clearly would be unwanted since why would someone want to take an argument here anywhere else, that runs afoul of on forum harassment rules and the person should absolutely report me to the mods.
If I look up their friends, family, coworkers, etc and reach out to them holy shit that’s straight up stalking and harassment and I should probably be permabanned instantly.
Yes, this. I felt the notion of just being talked about in a negative way was a bit too grey and contextual for it to be explicitly spelled out in the body of these rules. Specific cases will have be examined from the spirit of the CoC angle rather than an explicitly spelled out case.
Direct and unwanted contact is 100% a no. In all situations. Hence that got to go in. And yeah, direct and unwanted contact with a person’s associates solely because they are that person’s associates does fall under the overall category of direct and unwanted contact.
the second one still seems like it should be a problem
e: basically I don't want to say that should always result in a talking to, but I can't imagine a scenario where it wouldn't. Actual real name or forum handle, doesn't matter.
phorums.blackjack-and-hookers.org
Yeah I don't think it's in keeping with the ethics and vibe we're looking to create here if I went to where Bowen posts and said "Man Bowen fuckin' sucks, anyone heard about his terrible posts? You should read this shit."
Please help my sick dog
It feels too much like policing what people do or do not get to talk about. You can be talked about. It sucks if it’s negative, but you can. Lots of grey areas around intent, relationship, interpretation, etc. If someone snitches on you somewhere else specifically to get you in trouble or even something like deported, absolutely a problem.
If someone is just complaining about an interaction they had with a poster from here, or bringing them up as an example or story based on something they’ve heard from someone on CoRe, that’s a lot more grey. If you worry about this level of being talked about, well that definitely sucks as a feeling for you but it’s also part of the cost of doing business.