Forum Rules--changes needed

[Nanuk]

Since my latest infraction for criticizing the moderators, I was required to review the forum rules again. And while doing so, I noticed Rule #1:

1) Respect the moderators and each other. No flaming, racist comments, ad hominem (personal) attacks. Discuss content; do not attack someone's spelling, grammar, or posting style. No trashing someone's religion. No posting of someone else's personal information.

I would suggest the following changes:

1) Respect the moderators and each other. (Translation: when they disrespect you, no calling them out.) No flaming, racist comments, ad hominem (personal) attacks (unless you are a moderator calling someone a "liar" or a "troll"). Discuss content; do not attack someone's spelling, grammar, or posting style. No trashing someone's religion (unless you are a moderator). No posting of someone else's personal information (unless you are a moderator).

This place is looking more like Orwell's Animal Farm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm) every day. Either abide by your own rules or stop trying to enforce them arbitrarily and selectively.

[Ricky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBShN8qT4lk

[kkrapf]

Dude, it's time to move on.

[Nanuk]

Dude, it's time to move on.


I might have been done with it except for the moderators' decision to react in a punitive manner to my criticism of their handling of Chutney's disrespectful behavior. If you moderators want to anonymously hit me with infractions, you're going to need to publicly defend that AND your own recent violations of the very rules that you accuse me of breaking.

This "we're above the rules that we expect you to obey" stuff is ridiculous. How many more of us are going to get infracted or have our posts messed with just because we point out the obvious?

[kkrapf]

It's not the criticism, I imagine, but the obsessive and inappropriate manner in which it is presented.

[Neophyte Man]

I might have been done with it except for the moderators' decision to react in a punitive manner to my criticism of their handling of Chutney's disrespectful behavior. If you moderators want to anonymously hit me with infractions, you're going to need to publicly defend that AND your own recent violations of the very rules that you accuse me of breaking.

This "we're above the rules that we expect you to obey" stuff is ridiculous. How many more of us are going to get infracted or have our posts messed with just because we point out the obvious? From the word of Jeff Spicolly " those guys are richards" I am so sorry Nanuk that these Mods. are opening and willingly Crusifying you. It is so obvious that a certain few can't beat you in a debate so they have to reach down to the depths of hell to try and destroy you. Reverse discrimination is being played by Powers to be.
We can't change the way they are we have known that for a while, it is nice of you to point it out but we all know it any way. It is like arguing with a cop it will only get you into trouble even if you are 100% right.

[kkrapf]

It is like arguing with a cop it will only get you into trouble even if you are 100% right.

It's /actually/ like criticizing a group of volunteers who are offering their time as a service to this community. Just as he is always telling Chutney in regards to the military, if he has a problem he can always step up and serve himself. If not, it might behoove him to show just a modicum of respect. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't kill him.

[LazerFlash]

It's /actually/ like criticizing a group of volunteers who are offering their time as a service to this community.Seriously? So, just because someone out of the goodness of their heart chooses to service the community in some fashion, they should expect to be above reproach? Really? I guess you find nothing wrong with some of the stuff politicians do "in real life" then, too? Okay, so it's not exactly like "Weinergate" or the mess with Arnold on the Left Coast, but in principle, it *is* the same thing. People in the public eye - whether they're the former Governor of California or a moderator on a local public forum - need to be held to AT LEAST the same standards as everyone else, perhaps higher. And, I believe there's at least one article in the Bill of Rights that gives the common folk the right to call them to task about it...

[kkrapf]

Seriously? So, just because someone out of the goodness of their heart chooses to service the community in some fashion, they should expect to be above reproach? Really? I guess you find nothing wrong with some of the stuff politicians do "in real life" then, too? Okay, so it's not exactly like "Weinergate" or the mess with Arnold on the Left Coast, but in principle, it *is* the same thing. People in the public eye - whether they're the former Governor of California or a moderator on a local public forum - need to be held to AT LEAST the same standards as everyone else, perhaps higher. And, I believe there's at least one article in the Bill of Rights that gives the common folk the right to call them to task about it...


They need to be held accountable for their actions. They need to be treated to the same standard and perhaps above. But they do not need to be repeatedly harassed over the same issue in a public post. Imagine if I disagreed with you over something and despite you saying 'nope, sorry, I disagree', I repeatedly created the same post just to harp on it because I am dissatisfied it didn't go my way. Because I was harassing you, you would be well within your rights to report the post and I would be infracted. He is harassing the members of our moderator staff and, as members of this forum, he cannot do that to them. I mean, aside from forum rules, he is acting like... well. You can fill in the blanks. Because, you see, I know where to draw the line. It's easy. He needs to learn that.

[charliepff]

Just because you volunteer to do something does not give you the right to do whatever that is any way you like. Very plain and simple. Volunteering to do a service is not an excuse to break rules!!!

[Tony]

Volunteering to do a service is not an excuse to break rules!!! I agree. Are you speaking rhetorically or do you have an example of a rule I've broken? Or any other moderator for that matter?

Yes, I suppose we have to add harassment to the long list of Nanuk's misbehavior recently. I've been bending over backward trying to see things his way, but he hasn't been making it easy.

[Neophyte Man]

I agree. Are you speaking rhetorically or do you have an example of a rule I've broken? Or any other moderator for that matter?

Yes, I suppose we have to add harassment to the long list of Nanuk's misbehavior recently. I've been bending over backward trying to see things his way, but he hasn't been making it easy. Well add harassment to Chutney also. I like me some Chutney but he has obviously been all over Nanuk's ass. You may have not broken any of your rules Tony but you sure are a bad parent of the s&b children, you do play favorites. You are suppost to love all your S&B children equally.
If you are bending over backwards, try and bend over the other way because if you can't see what Nanuk is trying to point out then that way might make it more easy to see. Palms to the ground Tony, palms to the ground:)

[Nanuk]

It's not the criticism, I imagine, but the obsessive and inappropriate manner in which it is presented.


Well I would love to hear your suggestions, since all previous complaints about this sort of thing have been met with public silence while the offensive conduct continues. Instead of them telling Chutney that he's causing problems with his deliberately antagonistic behavior and making the whole forum look bad, they circle their wagons around him and lash out at those who have merely dared suggest in good faith that certain things be off-limits. And this is especially troublesome when in the past, any criticism of muslims and if I recall, even so-called "wiccans", has been officially suppressed. What I'm objecting to now it that double-standard--the one where Tony says that no one can offend members of any religious group except Christians. And like it or not, when one of the site officials engages in offensive conduct and the site owner and others in authority refuse to correct it, there's no way that it can't be attributed to the site owner and the site itself. And when many of those people have made anti-Christian statements in the past, it's not hard to imagine them all sitting back laughing at the idea of their Christian neighbors being offended.

And it's not "harassment" to point out offensive behavior and insist that those with the power to correct it do so, especially when the behavior doesn't change. Are you and/or Tony saying that we only get to object once and then if the conduct doesn't change, we just have to accept it? Not going to happen.

[kkrapf]

Well I would love to hear your suggestions, since all previous complaints about this sort of thing have been met with public silence while the offensive conduct continues. Instead of them telling Chutney that he's causing problems with his deliberately antagonistic behavior and making the whole forum look bad, they circle their wagons around him and lash out at those who have merely dared suggest in good faith that certain things be off-limits. And this is especially troublesome when in the past, any criticism of muslims and if I recall, even so-called "wiccans", has been officially suppressed. What I'm objecting to now it that double-standard--the one where Tony says that no one can offend members of any religious group except Christians. And like it or not, when one of the site officials engages in offensive conduct and the site owner and others in authority refuse to correct it, there's no way that it can't be attributed to the site owner and the site itself. And when many of those people have made anti-Christian statements in the past, it's not hard to imagine them all sitting back laughing at the idea of their Christian neighbors being offended.

And it's not "harassment" to point out offensive behavior and insist that those with the power to correct it do so, especially when the behavior doesn't change. Are you and/or Tony saying that we only get to object once and then if the conduct doesn't change, we just have to accept it? Not going to happen.

No, I would love to hear YOUR suggestions as to how one should moderate INTENT. Shall we not post images of pigs because it would be offensive to some religions? Should I take down my pigeon userpic because some previous New Yorker got shat on by one of them at some point down the road? The fact of the matter is - it's just a picture of Jesus. It doesn't say 'Jesus sucks'. It doesn't say 'die Christians die'. It's just an image of Jesus, and since he is prominently displayed by Christians themselves, it's obvious the image itself isn't offensive.

Unless you can read minds and then somehow provide that gift to the moderators here, they can't nor should they try to pick and choose completely innocuous userpics for moderation based on what reason the user MIGHT have chosen it. I'm sorry. They just shouldn't. If you and others want them to be fair and unbiased, you ought to be able to get on board with that, because THAT way lies a never-ending and slippery slope of subjectivity.

[Tony]

Well add harassment to Chutney also. I like me some Chutney but he has obviously been all over Nanuk's ass.Is that so 'obvious'? I don't think so, no matter how many times Nanuk repeats the claim. Try to find a single instance - I doubt you can. Now it's true the two of them got into some heated political arguments a couple weeks ago, but Chutney's already apologized for that and promised not to do it again. And he hasn't. In the meantime, Nanuk keeps posting these harassing threads making all sorts of absurd claims.

And yet again he's lied about something I've said. "Tony says that no one can offend members of any religious group except Christians." - I've never said any such thing and he knows it. Don't let him fool you by repeating it so many times it starts sounding like the truth.

[Kensey]

Seriously? So, just because someone out of the goodness of their heart chooses to service the community in some fashion, they should expect to be above reproach?

I wouldn't put it exactly that way, myself, but I would put it as "ultimately the mods set explicit and implicit policy; the users can abide by it, violate it and be punished, or leave." That's how every volunteer organization works, really -- the people who run it decide what it does and how. They don't "work for" the user base directly, although some people insist on treating them like they do.

Now I know the mods here do have a goal in mind of inclusivity, being a public resource, etc. A very noble goal and one they achieve measurably. And it would be expected that moderators would refrain from actually harming people by interfering with their lives. But ultimately it's up to Tony and Willis what passes for acceptable on the website, because they own the ball.

[KatherineA]

Unless you can read minds and then somehow provide that gift to the moderators here, they can't nor should they try to pick and choose completely innocuous userpics for moderation based on what reason the user MIGHT have chosen it. I'm sorry. They just shouldn't. If you and others want them to be fair and unbiased, you ought to be able to get on board with that, because THAT way lies a never-ending and slippery slope of subjectivity.

Exactly, what she said.

Further, you (Nanuk) have never answered my questions as to whether I should remove my avatar because it represents a witch or seer? Would you be offended if I changed mine to the Pope? What about someone who has the Prophet Mohammed, would that bother you?

I also do not see how ChutD's current avatar is insulting to Christians? it is a photo of a guy ascending to the heavens. Big deal. How is that insulting? You've said that it is, but have never explained why, other than because ChutD has it as his avatar and I don't.

[LazerFlash]

While I'm loathe to get into an argument invoking the "thought police", I do have to say that anyone who has been around S&B for any length of time knows exactly what Chut's original avatar switch was all about. Like it or not, intent *IS* a big part of moderating a forum such as this. To blithely say, "it's an image used by many _fill-in-the-blank_ people around the world", is kind of absurd in this situation, since it doesn't really apply. And, you know what? If it's so innocent, I have to wonder why he hasn't chimed in with his reason for the switch?

I think that this "debate" has reached the point of diminishing returns... All sides, as well as those of us holding opinions crossing the fence, are simply going around and around and around again. While I agree with Nanuck in principle, I also agree with some of the things that the mods and those who support them have said. I don't think anybody's going to change anybody else's minds at this point.

[Kensey]

No posting of someone else's personal information (unless you are a moderator).

Such as what? Is this you accusing Jenniffer of something unspecified again?

[Kensey]

While I'm loathe to get into an argument invoking the "thought police", I do have to say that anyone who has been around S&B for any length of time knows exactly what Chut's original avatar switch was all about. Like it or not, intent *IS* a big part of moderating a forum such as this. To blithely say, "it's an image used by many _fill-in-the-blank_ people around the world", is kind of absurd in this situation, since it doesn't really apply. And, you know what? If it's so innocent, I have to wonder why he hasn't chimed in with his reason for the switch?

I think if we're going to have rules about avatars, they should be simple and direct and allow as much latitude as possible in creative expression. "Somebody, somewhere might be offended" or "we all know the real reason" are not going to fly. The only standard I think has a hope of being enforced remotely fairly is obscenity. Jesus is not obscene, ergo Chutney gets to keep his avatar, whatever his reasons for using it are.

Similarly, if somebody were to use their avatar to say offensive (but not obscene) things about people in favor of gun rights, I would be personally a little offended but wouldn't dream of trying to get them infracted over it.

No matter what the rules are, people will push them, sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes to make a point, and sometimes just to be an obnoxious prat. (We've seen all three here, I think.) The answer is not to try to make the place a shiny happy "safe space" or something like that. It's for people to take to heart the idea that "at some point during your tenure here, somebody will do, say or post something that is within the letter of the rules but will personally offend you. Life's rough. Buy a helmet."

[JiveTurkey]

I had to logout to see the avatar in question, since my preferred setting does not show avatars or signatures. Low-clutter appeals to me.

I do not find it offensive. If anything, it inspires me to be mindful of what flies off my fingertips.

[derricksonb]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why a picture of what appears to be, but may not be Jesus is offensive.

[cwj]

In fairness to Nanuk, it seems that his previous threads expressing his opinion about the Mods have been locked...hence multiple threads.
Perhaps if his original thread dealing with this issue was kept alive it would have been resolved by now.
Most people don't like to be told to shut up, and locking someone's thread is pretty much doing just that.

Just my thoughts. Now, back to my airgun thread :)

[MetalMama]

I think had chutney changed his avatar months ago before this whole fiasco nothing would've ever been said about it. The fact that he did it during all this back and forth banter seemed to be a childish way of back slapping some folks. But that's just my opinion. All of this is the reason i primarily only come here to check in on important things such as weather, things happening around the area etc. And I have a feeling I'm not alone in feeling this way. Its a shame that its came down to this. We are all adults here. No one should hold your hand and make everyone play nice. From the outside looking in , this definately isn't a pleasant place to be associated with. And THAT folks, is a darned shame.

[charliepff]

I agree. Are you speaking rhetorically or do you have an example of a rule I've broken? Or any other moderator for that matter?




I was reffering to what LazerFlash wrote. I could really care less what you all do. It is not worth getting bent out of shape over.

[grafxgirl]

Most people on here are assuming that only Nanuk has been infracted or warned. Just because infractions and warnings are not public information doesn't mean moderators get away with it. You'd be surprised. Moderators have the same feelings as everyone else on here, and we can also lose our temper and type things out of the heat of the moment. It doesn't mean we get away with it.

[Willis]

From the outside looking in , this definitely isn't a pleasant place to be associated with.
I know you've enjoyed some of the posts Metal Mom- Particularly those about history of our big blue hill. Remember that there's a little button on the right side of each category that selectively collapses the forums and other features so they can't be seen. It looks like a little caret (^). The Heavy Metal category is certainly not the destination for those looking for a rose bed of happiness.

[MetalMama]

I know you've enjoyed some of the posts Metal Mom- Particularly those about history of our big blue hill. Remember that there's a little button on the right side of each category that selectively collapses the forums and other features so they can't be seen. It looks like a little caret (^). The Heavy Metal category is certainly not the destination for those looking for a rose bed of happiness.

I do enjoy those posts along with quite a few others willis, Im just speaking on a stand point from others that may be lurking and seeing what I ( even a not so newbie notices). While i agree that everyone has the choice in what area of the forum they choose to participate in, truth be told rather we like it or not, talk about the forum does come out in every day babble amongst the town folk. My question is this, is this the kind of light that s@b wants to shed upon itself? I would think no, but lately im not so sure. You guys put in alot of hard work to keep this site up and running top notch and kudos for that. But that being said, I feel as though everyone needs to step back for just a minute and actually read what your typing. Does it do your character justice? If not you may want to rethink your postings.
Before anyone throws stones, im not trying to say I'm the mighty MetalSaint of the Shannondoah, but honestly if i behaved like some that i have seen on here, I would be ashamed of myself. Just sayin'

[Starbuck]

...Just as he is always telling Chutney in regards to the military, if he has a problem he can always step up and serve himself...

Yes. This.

[derricksonb]

Would you be offended if I changed mine to the Pope? What about someone who has the Prophet Mohammed, would that bother you?


What if I changed mine to this? Would this be offensive?

http://mitchieville.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/cornholio-popeolio.jpg

or how about this?

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/SirJuanito/YMCAJesus.png

[lar]

I just take it all with a grain of salt, this particular argument is not as rivoting as some have been......

[Ricky]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why a picture of what appears to be, but may not be Jesus is offensive.
This. Please explain, someone?

[LFE]

This. Please explain, someone?

He is really the zig zag man:
http://zigzag.com/

[SeanEpperson]

I Liked this one so much I decided it needed to be my avatar- RAmen

http://www.venganza.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/Collander.jpg[/URL]

[derricksonb]

This. Please explain, someone?


Yup.... I'm still waiting for an answer to this myself....... My guess is that the person who opened the question really has no answer, but just an axe to grind with the person with whom he targeted.

My suggestion is that everyone picks a religious icon of their choosing and make it their avatar. See also the First Amendment to the Constitution. It says something about free speech, freedom of religion and Fuck You if you don't like any of the latter. BTW- I don't recall reading in the Constitution where you don't have the right to not be offended.

I'm a methodist so I'm on the religious left wing of caring about what others do so long as there's wine on Sunday morning.

[LazerFlash]

See also the First Amendment to the Constitution. It says something about free speech, freedom of religion and Fuck You if you don't like any of the latter.Hey... that wasn't in the copy we had to learn in school! :confused: I feel so cheated.

[chipgallo]

Religious icons are ok unless they somehow invoke a Jihad against Tony and Willis. Then all bets are off. (I joke as I type from what is essentially a WV style bunker.)

[Neophyte Man]

While I'm loathe to get into an argument invoking the "thought police", I do have to say that anyone who has been around S&B for any length of time knows exactly what Chut's original avatar switch was all about. Like it or not, intent *IS* a big part of moderating a forum such as this
Bingo.....