Rule suggestion.

**Emet** · 07-09-2010, 02:27 PM

This may already be in force, but since it is not explicitly stated (I think), I will directly quote from another forum:

“Address the argument, not the arguer." Having your opinion, claim or argument challenged, doubted or dismissed is not attacking the arguer.

For all I know, I may already be guilty of the above.

Emet
(the mild and meek)

**Earl Lee Tobed** · 07-09-2010, 03:31 PM

I wouldnt like to be the arbitrator on this one.It will be like skating on veeery thin ice!

Father
(The very ever so humble poster)

**Soapboxmom** · 07-09-2010, 04:56 PM

Should we word rule 10 more eloquently?

10: Thread hijacking and / or posting with the intent to simply flame will result in the member being warned and then banned if that becomes a problem. Please attack what was posted, not the person who posted it.

Soapboxmom

**Emet** · 07-09-2010, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Soapboxmom

Should be word rule 10 more eloquently?

10: Thread hijacking and / or posting with the intent to simply flame will result in the member being warned and then banned if that becomes a problem. Please attack what was posted, not the person who posted it.

Soapboxmom

Nope. Sorry.

Note to self: read rules more carefully before offering nothing and wasting space on the interwebs.

**iamwil** · 07-12-2010, 10:38 AM

What am I reading here?

Calling someone a moron, or an ass will be against the rules? Personal attackers will be excommunicated? Hate the sin, love the sinner?

That is the suggestion?

Admirable...but watch the membership slowly ban itself to death...there are those that just can't stick to discussion, they have to blame someone for their issues and have a need to put others down as they believe it raises them up.

**Soapboxmom** · 07-12-2010, 10:46 AM

We all know that posters will get into some heated debates and barbs will be thrown, but we would like folks to attack the topics with vigor and not just their fellow posters they disagree with. Friendly and lively is much more enjoyable for everyone.

Soapboxmom

**littleroundman** · 07-12-2010, 10:48 AM

When it comes to forums such as this, I'm personally in favour of the "Benevolent Dictator" model and the ability to censure posters for not acting within the "spirit" of the forum rules.

While "democracy" and first amendment rights have an important part in "society" I am not fully convinced of them being either necessary nor desirable in the context of anti scam forums.

**iamwil** · 07-12-2010, 10:50 AM

agreed and agreed

**Emet** · 07-12-2010, 10:57 AM

Admirable...but watch the membership slowly ban itself to death...there are those that just can't stick to discussion, they have to blame someone for their issues and have a need to put others down as they believe it raises them up.

Well, my hope is that any member who abuses the rule will be warned, suspended, or banned. I have confidence that the admins will enforce all of the rules as they see fit.

I only belong to 4 other forums--they all have the same rules (stated or implied)
1 24,000 members
2. 7,000 members
3. 550,000 members
2. 2,000 members

All are very stable forums with a long track record.

**Soapboxmom** · 07-12-2010, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by littleroundman

When it comes to forums such as this, I'm personally in favour of the "Benevolent Dictator" model and the ability to censure posters for not acting within the "spirit" of the forum rules.

While "democracy" and first amendment rights have an important part in "society" I am not fully convinced of them being either necessary nor desirable in the context of anti scam forums.

Very well put, my friend. I ran into a number of situations over yonder that did not fit the rules, so for those situations I wrote the coveted rule 13:

13: If it is not covered by the rules, please use good judgment. The administrators and moderators will also use good judgment and what they decide goes, so please heed any warnings you are given.

I trust the judgment of our admins and Mods here and wanted them to have the latitude to make decisions and feel confident that good judgment would more than suffice. The abiding principle is that the forum will be friendly, welcoming and well run. Problems will be handled privately and in a timely manner. As always PMs and e-mails about any issue are always welcomed.

Soapboxmom

**Emet** · 07-12-2010, 11:27 AM

While "democracy" and first amendment rights have an important part in "society" I am not fully convinced of them being either necessary nor desirable in the context of anti scam forums.

Agreed, but I'll take that one step further: Freedom of speech, as stated in The First Amendment of the US Constitution refers to government power:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of speech in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forums and Blogs of any kind have every right to set them up in any way they see fit, and enforce their rules and amend them at will and at their discretion.

I trust the judgment of our admins and Mods here and wanted them to have the latitude to make decisions and feel confident that good judgment would more than suffice. The abiding principle is that the forum will be friendly, welcoming and well run. Problems will be handled privately and in a timely manner. As always PMs and e-mails about any issue are always welcomed.

Thanks for that.