[karajorma]

I did actually intend for my post to be the end of the guidelines section rather than in tips. In the end it's a succinct way of stating many of the tips. (i.e we don't want to read your noise, twitter posts, etc).

I know the way it's written is somewhat different from the rest of the guidelines but I posted it cause I think with some editing it makes a nice summing up of the rules.

[Goober5000]

The primary rule on HLP is simply "Be Nice."  That doesn't mean you must always be in agreement, or even always be overly polite, but it does mean you have to be respectful of the person if not their views.  This also means that racism, homophobic language, sexism, personal attacks, and harassment are behaviours that can earn you an immediate ban.

I take issue with "be nice" as the prime directive.  Does that mean you can't offend anyone ever?  Because as much as I dislike people being quick to take offense at certain things, on the other side of the coin I don't want the board so sanitized that nobody's feelings must be hurt, ever.  Fury's feedback about technical administration isn't nice, but it's constructive and useful.  NGTM-1R's posts often are not nice, but there's usually a good point underneath the brusqueness.  Karajorma's and The E's moderation actions aren't typically nice, but they're effective.  And so on.

And as for taboo topics, what happens if there's a thread in General Discussion specifically about that topic?  Okay, you say, maybe we'll make an exception for that (and I think that's in the rules already, somewhere).  But then along comes Dekker talking about his bar exploits, or Nuke talking about a dead hooker in his trunk, and it's hilarious.  That would seem to trangress upon the rule.  (Now, by drawing attention to that I don't necessarily want there to be a crackdown on Nuke or Dekker, but I think we're all mature enough to accommodate different views without defining them as thoughtcrime.)

EDIT: For an alternative, maybe something like this...

HLP is a large community with diverse views from all points on the political, social, and spiritual spectra.  While we may disagree on certain issues, a core HLP value is that we will be respectful of one another when discussing them.  In friendly discourse, we are polite; in heated debate, we are mindful to argue the topic, not attack the person.  Please do not take this accommodation for granted; abusing it may lead to a ban.

[General Battuta]

This is the point of having moderators, though - they're not just operating on a punchcard program, they can evaluate context and make a call.

[karajorma]

I take issue with "be nice" as the prime directive.  Does that mean you can't offend anyone ever?  Because as much as I dislike people being quick to take offense at certain things, on the other side of the coin I don't want the board so sanitized that nobody's feelings must be hurt, ever.  Fury's feedback about technical administration isn't nice, but it's constructive and useful.  NGTM-1R's posts often are not nice, but there's usually a good point underneath the brusqueness.  Karajorma's and The E's moderation actions aren't typically nice, but they're effective.  And so on.

No it doesn't mean that you have to be overly nice, what it means is that you have to try to avoid deliberately being nasty. It means that they have to avoid making HLP a worse place to visit for everyone. Fury's feedback might have gotten further if he hadn't got people's back up with the way he said it (Then again if he hadn't said it that way, and I hadn't been deliberately provocative about how I replied, we might not have gotten to this point).

And as for taboo topics, what happens if there's a thread in General Discussion specifically about that topic?  Okay, you say, maybe we'll make an exception for that (and I think that's in the rules already, somewhere).  But then along comes Dekker talking about his bar exploits, or Nuke talking about a dead hooker in his trunk, and it's hilarious.  That would seem to trangress upon the rule.  (Now, by drawing attention to that I don't necessarily want there to be a crackdown on Nuke or Dekker, but I think we're all mature enough to accommodate different views without defining them as thoughtcrime.)

I don't get where this is coming from, where have we said either of those things are taboo?

[Polpolion]

One kind of logistical thing I'd like to know is when will this ruleset be "done"? Obviously we can't sit here talking it to death, but I'm sure that's something we're all perfectly capable of doing.

And as for taboo topics, what happens if there's a thread in General Discussion specifically about that topic?  Okay, you say, maybe we'll make an exception for that (and I think that's in the rules already, somewhere).  But then along comes Dekker talking about his bar exploits, or Nuke talking about a dead hooker in his trunk, and it's hilarious.  That would seem to trangress upon the rule.  (Now, by drawing attention to that I don't necessarily want there to be a crackdown on Nuke or Dekker, but I think we're all mature enough to accommodate different views without defining them as thoughtcrime.)

To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely ok with the kinds of posts you're referencing. I realize that HLP is hardly a 100% formal, professional site, and GenDisc is far less than that, and WHIYL is further below that, but I wouldn't really expect to joke about dead hookers until I joined #hard-light. I would certainly oppose a "It's ok to be stupid here, here, and here" provision in the rules.

[Black Wolf]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely ok with the kinds of posts you're referencing. I realize that HLP is hardly a 100% formal, professional site, and GenDisc is far less than that, and WHIYL is further below that, but I wouldn't really expect to joke about dead hookers until I joined #hard-light. I would certainly oppose a "It's ok to be stupid here, here, and here" provision in the rules.

That right there is the problem. There's no standard for what is acceptable and what isn't - it varies from person to person, nation to nation, religion to religion, etc. to etc. All we can do as mods is enforce our own personal beliefs, and even those vary considerably - we have admins and mods from the conservative and liberal ends of the spectrum on issues like these.

That said, both prohibitive (i.e. these are the things you can't say) and permissive (these are the areas where you can be controversial) systems are terrible. So I think that this is an area that we will always struggle with - maybe we can ask for a bit of flexibility from forumites here.

I'm generally pretty positive about the ruleset as it stands now. One thing I'd like to add (though possibly not something that needs to go into the rules formally) is that moderation should be stricter in modding, fredding and campaign related topics. These are our lifeblood, and we should acknowledge that through greater respect in those areas.

[MP-Ryan]

Folks, the point in the guidelines as they are written is to convey an attitude, rather than specific behaviours.  This gives the most flexibility to the moderation team while also putting form members on notice as to what kind of posting behaviour is generally expected.  The flexibility is the important part - while we can turn around and write a lengthy list of "don't do this," that just leaves loopholes.  There is no loophole in the current set, because it is discretionary.

All that said, I do like Goober's suggestion as the lead in instead of "be nice" because it does a better job of conveying the expectations of posting attitude.  He's right - many of us are not 'nice,' but still able to be respectful.

I'm going to roll some of these suggestions into the OP; everyone take a look and we can do some specific wording tweaks or revert the changes once its put together and we see them in place.  Give me a few minutes.

[MP-Ryan]

One kind of logistical thing I'd like to know is when will this ruleset be "done"? Obviously we can't sit here talking it to death, but I'm sure that's something we're all perfectly capable of doing.

To pick an arbitrary date - Monday.  Obviously if there becomes a glaring issue they can be tweaked again, but I see no reason why there can't be enough input in the next five days to do this as meaningfully as possible.  I realize I have no clout or authority whatsoever, but I long ago discovered that if you act like you know what you're doing and have the authority to do it, people generally roll with it   And since this place is like herding cats at the best of times, if someone doesn't like that they can overrule me and propose a better alternative 

[MP-Ryan]

OP updated.  Goober, I took some liberties with your suggestion, but I believe I've changed all references from 'nice' to 'respect' now, which IMHO actually works a lot better.

Instead of mucking about with wholesale changes, why don't we see if we can tweak what we've got so far.

[Goober5000]

This is the sentence I had hoped to avoid with my suggested phrasing:

This also means that racism, homophobic language, sexism, personal attacks, and harassment are behaviours that can earn you an immediate ban.

Look what happened today on the Uganda thread.  Familiar stated his opinion, one that is consistent with public policy as well as public opinion in Russia, where he is located.  But The E implied that his opinion wasn't welcome on HLP.

[Scotty]

I hope you'll excuse me from heartily agreeing with the idea that it most assuredly is not.

[General Battuta]

That opinion should not be welcome on HLP and that should be enshrined in the rules. In fact it currently is. Are we going to actively remove: "HLP will not tolerate any posts of a racist, sexist or bigoted nature."

Holocaust denial, ideologies of racial or eugenic supremacy, all that kind of **** - definitely a no go here. No HLP member should be made to feel unwelcome or afraid because of who they are. Challenged on what they believe, sure, but nothing that intrinsically makes someone unwelcome.

[MP-Ryan]

Actually, I don't have an issue with what transpired in the Uganda thread - and I don't think it broke the rules.  Rather, someone stated an opinion that is rejected by the majority of HLP members' values, and was soundly called out and debated on it.  That's the kind of "community-directed" moderation I was talking about in the other thread that is appropriate here.  His post was definitely borderline on the rules, but again, I think flexibility is important because reasonableness was far better served by people debating him on this than a ban being handed out.

Now, that said, I still think the current prohibition on racism/sexism/homophobic slurs/etc is both reasonable and necessary because it is useful to dispense with horrendous and persistent arguers than cannot be debated, but in general more public good is served by calling these attitudes out than simply shutting them down, especially when its a matter of wrongheaded opinion, as it was today (though it walked the line), rather than outright attacks on particular people or groups.

Conversely, the rule is important because if a poster showed up repeatedly asserting something outrageous and offensive like "all women are *****es and whores" (etc) and didn't respond to the first warning, then I'd hope they'd be banned forthwith - and the rules should make that clear.

[General Battuta]

I think our active gay members should be guaranteed basic recognition of their humanity.

[MP-Ryan]

I think our active gay members should be guaranteed basic recognition of their humanity.

And they are - if anything, the Uganda thread made it abundantly clear that someone expressing an opinion that they don't agree with tolerance or "promotion" (whatever that means) of gays is going to find themselves very unwelcome by the forum as a whole.  The rules in this thread guarantee that he can't attack our LGBT members outright (which he didn't directly) and also guarantee that people who debate him on his wrongheadedness are free to make it clear his views were not welcome here long as it is done respectfully (which it was).

I see a win here on all sides.  If anything, the combination of the proposed rules and the community reaction reinforces that HLP is a place where people of all stripes have their basic humanity protected by its members as well as its rules.

[Goober5000]

Actually, I don't have an issue with what transpired in the Uganda thread - and I don't think it broke the rules.  Rather, someone stated an opinion that is rejected by the majority of HLP members' values, and was soundly called out and debated on it.  That's the kind of "community-directed" moderation I was talking about in the other thread that is appropriate here.  His post was definitely borderline on the rules, but again, I think flexibility is important because reasonableness was far better served by people debating him on this than a ban being handed out.

Now, that said, I still think the current prohibition on racism/sexism/homophobic slurs/etc is both reasonable and necessary because it is useful to dispense with horrendous and persistent arguers than cannot be debated, but in general more public good is served by calling these attitudes out than simply shutting them down, especially when its a matter of wrongheaded opinion, as it was today (though it walked the line), rather than outright attacks on particular people or groups.

Conversely, the rule is important because if a poster showed up repeatedly asserting something outrageous and offensive like "all women are *****es and whores" (etc) and didn't respond to the first warning, then I'd hope they'd be banned forthwith - and the rules should make that clear.

This is a reasonable post, and I would have no problem qualifying that sentence to apply to slurs.  "Language", or "nature", however, are open-ended enough to be interpreted any number of ways.

I think our active gay members should be guaranteed basic recognition of their humanity.

Please point out where anybody is withholding basic recognition of their humanity.

[General Battuta]

I think our active gay members should be guaranteed basic recognition of their humanity.

And they are - if anything, the Uganda thread made it abundantly clear that someone expressing an opinion that they don't agree with tolerance or "promotion" (whatever that means) of gays is going to find themselves very unwelcome by the forum as a whole.  The rules in this thread guarantee that he can't attack our LGBT members outright (which he didn't directly) and also guarantee that people who debate him on his wrongheadedness are free to make it clear his views were not welcome here long as it is done respectfully (which it was).

I see a win here on all sides.  If anything, the combination of the proposed rules and the community reaction reinforces that HLP is a place where people of all stripes have their basic humanity protected by its members as well as its rules.

Debate is all well and good, but having to defend yourself constantly - or even watch others defend you - is exhausting. It has real, quantifiable impact on physical and mental health. It impairs creativity and productivity. I don't speak out of idealism here: this is empirical data. And that's without even touching on issues of stereotype threat and cognition.

Day to day life for a lot of people - people who face discrimination, people with PTSD, people whose children or loved ones struggle with disabilities - is a gauntlet. Let's keep HLP a space for creativity about FreeSpace, not an extension of the warzone.

Let's retain the rule against posts of a bigoted nature. It's important to my respect for HLP. Losing it would be a big step back.

[MP-Ryan]

"Language", or "nature", however, are open-ended enough to be interpreted any number of ways.

Which, at the risk of repeating a theme, is why you have moderators and admins with judgement and discretion who should be trusted to exercise it appropriately.  IMHO, that particular wording is fine and the consensus seems to lean that way as well.  Unless the admins/mods or a broad consensus in the thread are going to over-rule me, I'm not comfortable narrowing it further from its current form.  It's fair to point out that of all the people who commented on this proposed guideline in both the June thread and this one, you are the only one who has raised that particular wording as a problem.

EDIT:  I'd like to point out that "earn you a ban" is immediately preceded by "can," not "will."  So again, admin/mod discretion is the key here.

Let's retain the rule against posts of a bigoted nature. It's important to my respect for HLP. Losing it would be a big step back.

It would seem we are in agreement, then

EDIT2:  I am now going to bed.  I'll check in tomorrow morning.

[Scotty]

I think our active gay members should be guaranteed basic recognition of their humanity.

And they are - if anything, the Uganda thread made it abundantly clear that someone expressing an opinion that they don't agree with tolerance or "promotion" (whatever that means) of gays is going to find themselves very unwelcome by the forum as a whole.  The rules in this thread guarantee that he can't attack our LGBT members outright (which he didn't directly) and also guarantee that people who debate him on his wrongheadedness are free to make it clear his views were not welcome here long as it is done respectfully (which it was).

I see a win here on all sides.  If anything, the combination of the proposed rules and the community reaction reinforces that HLP is a place where people of all stripes have their basic humanity protected by its members as well as its rules.

Debate is all well and good, but having to defend yourself constantly - or even watch others defend you - is exhausting. It has real, quantifiable impact on physical and mental health. It impairs creativity and productivity. I don't speak out of idealism here: this is empirical data. And that's without even touching on issues of stereotype threat and cognition.

I don't want to misconstrue anything here, but this is very much true.  Even though the Uganda thread didn't devolve into some awful flamewar, it still puts me in a very awkward position as both homosexual and moderator.  That kind of discussion engenders a sort of de-facto inability to participate in the discussion - as a member of the group in question, it's by definition impossible for me to keep the discussion impartial and non-personal.  It completely limits involvement both as a member of HLP, and much more severely as an active moderator.

That's all even leaving aside the discomfort that comes with confronting the concept that someone else disagrees with your mere existence or way of life.  It's a serious, serious thing, and I'd greatly appreciate if something to that effect were included in the guidelines.

[The E]

Let me make something abundantly clear: I don't give a single **** whether your opinion is "consistent with the majority opinion in your homeland ". If you're going to be a bigot on my watch,  you're going to be called out and smacked. Intolerance for intolerance is a virtue.