Forum Rules

[kjeks]

Dear Forum members:
Since this Forum was founded in Sept. 2014, its topics have grown well beyond discussing SSSS and ARTD.  By and large, this is a good thing; we encourage the spirit of fellowship and Minnions' wide range of interests.

But we can't be all things to all people, and there are some topics and activities that by their nature trigger strong feelings or are divisive.  We reserve the right to moderate, lock, or even remove threads if we feel they are becoming problematic.  After all, there are many other venues online to discuss or advocate controversial topics.

With that said, here are our proposed guidelines for what is and isn't appropriate for the Forum.  (You already know not to engage in discrimination, bigotry, or hate speech and to treat all other Forum members with respect.)  We're giving Forum members the chance to weigh in on these rules before we make them official.

* No political advocacy.  We realize it's hard to avoid all mention of political positions one way or the other (and we've tolerated that in the past), but we won't allow out-and-out politicking.

For example, it would be OK to say that last weekend you were at a Rand Paul 2016 rally (a mere neutral mention of an activity), or even share a funny/interesting but nonpolitical photo you took there.  A brief mention that you plan to vote for him, and why, would be *tolerable.*  A long screed in his favor, or a fundraising link, would be right out.

This covers not only electoral politics but advocacy for various causes -- environmental or pro-development, pro- or anti-immigration, etc.

* The same thing for religion.  You can discuss religions, beliefs, and traditions (including your own) in a neutral, objective way -- and in fact, we already have a lot of that on the Forum.  But please, no advocacy or evangelism.

* Prayer requests and other religious *practice*, we are allowing temporarily (as a subset of the Comfort Corner), with the understanding that this thread will make clear that it is open to people of all religious backgrounds.  If it becomes divisive, we reserve the right to moderate it.

* If a post or topic makes you uncomfortable, we encourage you to bring your concerns directly (but politely) to the poster.  Often, people don't realize that others may have different feelings on a topic (or, say, the amount of PDA or blood shown in art); if they find out someone objects, they are generally willing to remove the questionable post or discuss a mutually acceptable solution.
HOWEVER, if you've tried that approach and it didn't work, or you don't want to approach the poster directly, please feel free to reach out to any skald, moderator, or admin via PM, or reported post, and we will work to resolve the situation.

* If you have questions/disagreements with something a mod, skald, or admin has asked you to do, please either discuss it directly with that person, or if you feel uncomfortable approaching them, you can approach Kjeks, Sunflower, or Feartheviolas.

We hope you'll see these rules not as censorship, but guidelines to help encourage good fellowship and civil discourse among the Forum at large.  The rest of the Internet is often a free-fire zone; we'd like to avoid that here.

Now the moderation team is curious to hear your thoughts on these guidelines

[Laufey]

I quite like these new rules, it's important to keep a forum as neutral around the "red button"-topics as possible to avoid unnecessary drama and keep the place welcoming for everyone, besides just in general knowing where the mod team draws the lines is helpful for the users. Plus I'm glad that even though no forum can be everything for everyone, this one still allows a lot, as long as things stay in the threads most suited for them.

[Yuuago]

It sounds reasonable to me; draws lines while still allowing flexibility and being open. I don't see any issues here.

[Fimbulvarg]

* No political advocacy.  We realize it's hard to avoid all mention of political positions one way or the other (and we've tolerated that in the past), but we won't allow out-and-out politicking.

For example, it would be OK to say that last weekend you were at a Rand Paul 2016 rally (a mere neutral mention of an activity), or even share a funny/interesting but nonpolitical photo you took there.  A brief mention that you plan to vote for him, and why, would be *tolerable.*  A long screed in his favor, or a fundraising link, would be right out.

Would you consider it within the bounds of the new rules if I went on a page long rant about how much I despise Donald Trump 2016? If not, maybe the term "political advocacy" is not what you're looking for.

[urbicande]

Spoiler: show

Dear Forum members:
Since this Forum was founded in Sept. 2014, its topics have grown well beyond discussing SSSS and ARTD.  By and large, this is a good thing; we encourage the spirit of fellowship and Minnions' wide range of interests.

But we can't be all things to all people, and there are some topics and activities that by their nature trigger strong feelings or are divisive.  We reserve the right to moderate, lock, or even remove threads if we feel they are becoming problematic.  After all, there are many other venues online to discuss or advocate controversial topics.

With that said, here are our proposed guidelines for what is and isn't appropriate for the Forum.  (You already know not to engage in discrimination, bigotry, or hate speech and to treat all other Forum members with respect.)  We're giving Forum members the chance to weigh in on these rules before we make them official.

* No political advocacy.  We realize it's hard to avoid all mention of political positions one way or the other (and we've tolerated that in the past), but we won't allow out-and-out politicking.

For example, it would be OK to say that last weekend you were at a Rand Paul 2016 rally (a mere neutral mention of an activity), or even share a funny/interesting but nonpolitical photo you took there.  A brief mention that you plan to vote for him, and why, would be *tolerable.*  A long screed in his favor, or a fundraising link, would be right out.

This covers not only electoral politics but advocacy for various causes -- environmental or pro-development, pro- or anti-immigration, etc.

* The same thing for religion.  You can discuss religions, beliefs, and traditions (including your own) in a neutral, objective way -- and in fact, we already have a lot of that on the Forum.  But please, no advocacy or evangelism.

* Prayer requests and other religious *practice*, we are allowing temporarily (as a subset of the Comfort Corner), with the understanding that this thread will make clear that it is open to people of all religious backgrounds.  If it becomes divisive, we reserve the right to moderate it.

* If a post or topic makes you uncomfortable, we encourage you to bring your concerns directly (but politely) to the poster.  Often, people don't realize that others may have different feelings on a topic (or, say, the amount of PDA or blood shown in art); if they find out someone objects, they are generally willing to remove the questionable post or discuss a mutually acceptable solution.
HOWEVER, if you've tried that approach and it didn't work, or you don't want to approach the poster directly, please feel free to reach out to any skald, moderator, or admin via PM and we will work to resolve the situation.

* If you have questions/disagreements with something a mod, skald, or admin has asked you to do, please either discuss it directly with that person, or if you feel uncomfortable approaching them, you can approach Kjeks, Sunflower, or Feartheviolas.

We hope you'll see these rules not as censorship, but guidelines to help encourage good fellowship and civil discourse among the Forum at large.  The rest of the Internet is often a free-fire zone; we'd like to avoid that here.

Now the moderation team is curious to hear your thoughts on these guidelines

I wonder if it might not be worthwhile allowing some more freewheeling discussion on a sub-board.  I don't think I'd frequent it myself, but I can see a place for allowing discussion.

I'm also a little hazy about some of the rules here.  Say, for example, someone is discussing the weather conditions in SSSS and it's pointed out (for example) that a harsh winter in Denmark is unlikely because of changes in the climate.  That's controversial in some quarters, but it's relevant to the Y90 world of SSSS.  How would something like that be handled under these rules>

[Aki]

I like these guidelines, they sound like a good solid base to go on.

What would be the stance on non-political advocacy? (Like a link for a NGO fundraising for e.g. donations for wildlife protection?) Is this was you meant with "advocacy for various causes"?
(Not that I plan on doing that but just so things are clear...)

[Fimbulvarg]

Say, for example, someone is discussing the weather conditions in SSSS and it's pointed out (for example) that a harsh winter in Denmark is unlikely because of changes in the climate.  That's controversial in some quarters, but it's relevant to the Y90 world of SSSS.

That's an empirical discussion, not a value-based one.

[urbicande]

That's an empirical discussion, not a value-based one.

You'd think so, until you have a lot of friends who turn out to be of a certain US political bent.

[Sunflower]

Would you consider it within the bounds of the new rules if I went on a page long rant about how much I despise Donald Trump 2016? If not, maybe the term "political advocacy" is not what you're looking for.

I'm speaking just for myself here (without having conferred with the rest of the mods/admins), but:  No. We probably could have been clearer that "advocacy" = opposing as well as promoting people/causes/etc.

I like these guidelines, they sound like a good solid base to go on.

What would be the stance on non-political advocacy? (Like a link for a NGO fundraising for e.g. donations for wildlife protection?) Is this was you meant with "advocacy for various causes"?

Yeah, frankly, even something as benign as that, I think we want to avoid.  Because there could be something controversial about the charity's methods or allies.

We *might* consider something directly relevant to SSSS, e.g. if someone posted in News of the Outside World a news story that a charity is raising money to fix up historic buildings in Copenhagen, or rebuild an authentic 19th-C. Icelandic tuna boat, or the like.  But even there, we want to be very cautious.

I wonder if it might not be worthwhile allowing some more freewheeling discussion on a sub-board.  I don't think I'd frequent it myself, but I can see a place for allowing discussion.

I'm also a little hazy about some of the rules here.  Say, for example, someone is discussing the weather conditions in SSSS and it's pointed out (for example) that a harsh winter in Denmark is unlikely because of changes in the climate.  That's controversial in some quarters, but it's relevant to the Y90 world of SSSS.  How would something like that be handled under these rules?

Re: free-wheeling discussion, you aren't the first person to propose that.  At the time, very early in the Forum's history, the admin team was basically Eich (and me, pre-Skald role, throwing some unsolicited opinions his way) -- and we didn't yet have the extensive history setting an example of how we treat one another. 
The feeling then was that Eich didn't have time to police a potentially controversial thread.  Moreover, I felt, then as now, that the whole rest of the Internet is available for free-wheeling discussion on all subjects; we already allow a fairly broad range of topics relevant to our fandom.

That's not to say that couldn't ever happen, just saying why I personally think it would be more trouble than it's worth.

I do think climate change (f.ex.) could be discussed where it's relevant, in exactly the kind of example you bring up.  (In fact, it has.)  However, if a potentially controversial topic like that crops up, we mods/admins will be watching the discussion *closely* to make sure it remains cordial.  We don't want  the tone to degenerate, as it sometimes did in the "Ethnic Diversity in SSSS" thread. 

[Cancvas]

There was some discussion on this in chat, so here is my half cent:
I read it as: "You may have opinions and you may express those (politely), but you may not push them to others, wanted/agreed or not."
I'd be somewhat worried on some phrasings, if it were not this community. I have a lot of confidence in admins and their moderation, because it hasn't spilt all over the place, and also community here is suprisingly good natured and tolerant, meaning I haven't seen anyone being "pushed".

-C

[viola]

I like these guidelines, they sound like a good solid base to go on.

What would be the stance on non-political advocacy? (Like a link for a NGO fundraising for e.g. donations for wildlife protection?) Is this was you meant with "advocacy for various causes"?
(Not that I plan on doing that but just so things are clear...)

We already have a rule in place that covers this:

Don't solicit or advertise.  That means don't post links to a site you, or anyone affiliated with you through work, makes money off of, or your company's site, without sufficient cause, and don't advertise for your faith or try to convert anyone.  I'll allow links to crowdfunding sites like Indiegogo and Kickstarter, as well as any smaller, donation-based sites or pages.

I wonder if it might not be worthwhile allowing some more freewheeling discussion on a sub-board.  I don't think I'd frequent it myself, but I can see a place for allowing discussion.

I'm also a little hazy about some of the rules here.  Say, for example, someone is discussing the weather conditions in SSSS and it's pointed out (for example) that a harsh winter in Denmark is unlikely because of changes in the climate.  That's controversial in some quarters, but it's relevant to the Y90 world of SSSS.  How would something like that be handled under these rules>

Re: free-wheeling discussion, you aren't the first person to propose that.  At the time, very early in the Forum's history, the admin team was basically Eich (and me, pre-Skald role, throwing some unsolicited opinions his way) -- and we didn't yet have the extensive history setting an example of how we treat one another. 
The feeling then was that Eich didn't have time to police a potentially controversial thread.  Moreover, I felt, then as now, that the whole rest of the Internet is available for free-wheeling discussion on all subjects; we already allow a fairly broad range of topics relevant to our fandom.

That's not to say that couldn't ever happen, just saying why I personally think it would be more trouble than it's worth.

I do think climate change (f.ex.) could be discussed where it's relevant, in exactly the kind of example you bring up.  (In fact, it has.)  However, if a potentially controversial topic like that crops up, we mods/admins will be watching the discussion *closely* to make sure it remains cordial.  We don't want  the tone to degenerate, as it sometimes did in the "Ethnic Diversity in SSSS" thread. 

Urbi: I would say this kind of climate discussion is fine, especially since it's speculation. If people get nasty about it or start forcing other people who disagree to believe it then it would be unreasonable and there would probably be an intervention.

As for the sub board idea, like Sunny said, there are many other places on the internet where one can go to discuss these things. I would recommend that to anyone who wants to go beyond what we have here. It's the same as, for example, the policy for art containing sex. It is fine for forum members to create this sort of content, but we ask that it be shared elsewhere and not posted on the forum.

[Fimbulvarg]

you may not push them to others, wanted/agreed or not."

forcing other people who disagree to believe it

What exactly constitutes "forcing someone to believe smt"? I don't think I've ever seen an argument involving actual coercion rather than stating opposing views.

[Cancvas]

That's the point where you start to have really hurt feelings,"peas up the nose" or flame war or all together. Agreeing to disagree and then dropping the issue is really hard for some.

-C

[kjeks]

What exactly constitutes "forcing someone to believe smt"? I don't think I've ever seen an argument involving actual coercion rather than stating opposing views.

So let's take Günther Öttinger for example:
A: is of the oppinion that he does a brilliant job for the EU office he is asigned to.
B: Is opposing that view.

So far no problem
A: Insists on their opinion and brings some more or less valid arguements.
B: starts A calling a douche => border reached

Let's say B: is just bringing up some more valid arguments, but A does not let go for hours. And then bringing up things like:
I've seen that you are that type of person that like x or z. You support that. Öttinger does that, too. You would target your values not to support him.
A goes further and says: seriously you cannot support x and be in favour of Öttinger. Because if you do, you still betray yourself. A even provides you with a huge range of links that contain many websites in favour of Öttinger. Some of those even contain information about B's doubts but take them up with intelligent techniques.

Let's say B is not someone who is captured easily by methods like these. but C is. And C now jumps into discussion stating that of course A has a valid point. And how on earth could B just not see that?

We could play this example on and on but in the current version there is already three spots where discussion can explode. The problem evolves where someone targets you by using aspects of what they assume to be your personality. Not everyone has set their personal borders strong enough to react absolutely cool. And there is some topics one might never be able to act neutral but at least knows when it is time to step back. And some persons will always point at rules and say: hey, but the rule does not say that I can't do that.

"I've seen that you are that type of person that like x or z. You support that. Öttinger does that, too. You would target your values not to support him. "

With not allowing people to persuade heavily we can even point out that this could be such a way of argueing not allowed. In itself it might be rather unproblematic and most times might be stuff users can take care of themselves by saying: "hey, you are crossing a personal border here, let go. I don't like techniques calling for empathy where I don't want to feel it."

Any step further though is clearly more than just exchanging opposing views, because hurt feelings will jump in. And I'd say some of the political discussions fenris and me are pulling on chat are never fit to go on the bord here.

That has not answered your question about your wish to put up an extra long post in favour of donald trump but eh, gotta leave to work soon .

[urbicande]

So let's take Günther Öttinger for example:
A: is of the oppinion that he does a brilliant job for the EU office he is asigned to.
B: Is opposing that view.

That is, though, something that is more subjective than objective. (Although I'm not sure that matters; I've seen more flamewars over things like economics and a couple of hot-button issues that I WILL NOT mention right now, but there's been enough over what should be simple things like the age of the earth that I don't rule anything out.

But I like the idea of Wheaton's Law as the guiding principle.