Rules and Moderator information

[Cultellus]

Thanks again for the post. Particularly the final paragraph. We agree fully. Well, d’oh. Except for the last part. Shades has rules for the forum. These are not terms and conditions. These are the rules. And, I can choose to act or react outside of those rules. So can you. So does Lem. So can Atlanticmike. So can my sock puppet, K Graham.

Part of getting a reaction inside the lines or rules involves connection and respect, the rules are not enough.

On assumption 1 above, I never said that all human motivations are based in entertainment, nor do I believe it. You made a point I did not make or believe, and shot it down. Easy, we actually agree on your response to the fake point. Life Motivations can be other basic needs, like belonging and safety.

This board, with cartoons, is a form of entertainment. It is not a basic need. The end. Same for video games and board games.

We are getting closer here. Again nails on your final paragraph. Thank you.

Cool. You’re welcome. And thank you for the response. In my experience, most disagreements are about distinctions: how do we distinguish X from Y? And what consequences to we attach to X as opposed to Y? And my approach is not to argue about what X and Y are, but how they function in the relevant context.

So, I’m seeing two distinctions on the table: terms and conditions/rules and entertainment/basic needs.

I don’t understand why, in the context of this discussion board, you place importance on this distinction. In my view, they function exactly the same in this context. There is a formalized set of rules we all agreed to when we registered that has a fancy name like terms and conversations or terms of service. But, they simply function for us as a set of rules that we must follow in order to participate. Shades’ rules function the same way. Ultimately, as with the terms and conditions out terms of service, he has the power to deny participation as a consequence of not following those rules.

So, for purposes of this discussion, I don’t think there is a relevant distinction. But your posts indicate that you do. So, to understand your argument, I need to ask for clarification. So, first, how can I tell whether something is a “rule” as opposed to a “term and condition”? Second, what different consequences flow from something that is a “rule” as opposed to a “term and condition?”

The other distinction is entertainment/basic human need. As a preliminary question, I need to ask whether there are human motivations that are neither entertainment nor basic human needs? In other words, is the distinction X/Y, X/Y/Z, etc.?

Regardless of the number of categories we are dealing with, I’ll have the same two questions: If I propose a specific human motivation, how so we know which category it fits into? And, once we’ve assigned it to a category, what consequences flow from being assigned to one category to the other?

I agree that we’re making progress. And by progress, I mean drilling down to and identifying what we actually disagree about without kicking each other in the teeth.

Enjoy the day. I’m hanging Election materials on doors for a friend and playing something with my co-op friends. It’s a gorgeous fall day in the Pacific Northwest.

Its a family tradition day around here. Family chili recipes, pumpkins and kids.

We really agree on this a ton. Its a bit semantics and a bit that you are just a lawyer who is mostly wrong because lawyers belong to satan’s tribal cult of greed, death and lies.

Other than that, we are speaking the same language.

[Cultellus]

So, I’m seeing two distinctions on the table: terms and conditions/rules and entertainment/basic needs.

I don’t understand why, in the context of this discussion board, you place importance on this distinction. In my view, they function exactly the same in this context. There is a formalized set of rules we all agreed to when we registered that has a fancy name like terms and conversations or terms of service. But, they simply function for us as a set of rules that we must follow in order to participate. Shades’ rules function the same way. Ultimately, as with the terms and conditions out terms of service, he has the power to deny participation as a consequence of not following those rules.

So, for purposes of this discussion, I don’t think there is a relevant distinction. But your posts indicate that you do. So, to understand your argument, I need to ask for clarification. So, first, how can I tell whether something is a “rule” as opposed to a “term and condition”? Second, what different consequences flow from something that is a “rule” as opposed to a “term and condition?”

The other distinction is entertainment/basic human need. As a preliminary question, [third]I need to ask whether there are human motivations that are neither entertainment nor basic human needs? In other words, is the distinction X/Y, X/Y/Z, etc.?

Regardless of the number of categories we are dealing with, I’ll have the same two questions: [fourth]If I propose a specific human motivation, how so we know which category it fits into? And, [fifth]once we’ve assigned it to a category, what consequences flow from being assigned to one category to the other?

I will try and give this a go, one through five.

1: Focusing on the conditions part of 'terms and conditions.' I am using conditions in the second definition below. The circumstances affecting the WAY in which people do something. This has nothing to do with the rules. This has everything to do with how it is actually happening, including how things happen within or beyond the acceptable boundaries. The rules for the Indy 500 are very clear. The conditions take into account the weather, the experience or inexperience of the drivers, and the temperature of the track. The conditions describe the variables that a driver must negotiate to stay in the race.

plural noun: conditions
1. the state of something with regard to its appearance, quality, or working order.
"the wiring is in good condition"

2. the circumstances affecting the way in which people live or work, especially with regard to their safety or well-being.
"harsh working and living conditions"

Distinguishing whether something is done in accordance with the rules is a nuance for the moderators and something posters must consider, but it barely scratches the surface of the elements of posting in a social media forum. Just like the HOA rules do not describe the entirety of the experience of having a twat HOA president.

2: Different consequences that flow from a rule versus a condition? Well, when a rule is broken, one is subject to correction. The rules do not prevent an overwhelming (loud or majority) ideology from forming within a community or forum, but the rules dictate how one can (or should) respond as a member of the minority or the majority. The consequence of pushing up against the majority can be a freefall of insults, rejection, amusement or any number of things. It can include being welcome or not. The consequences of being an asshole on the board can be not having friends, connections or meaningful conversations. Or, being an asshole can be rewarding if one is the right asshole for the right cause. There are no rules preventing one from being a Republican with outspoken ideas. There are reactions and consequences for being an outspoken Republican. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

3: Of course, there are more motivations than entertainment. I suppose, if you follow the 7 or 5 basic needs and believe that all motivations fit into those categories, then every motivation can be a subset of a basic need or an actual basic need. I am not that heady about it all. I have a basic need for food. I do not need to be entertained and have a meal with friends or at the cinema while I eat. I have a basic need for belonging, but my family is not obliged to entertain me. Entertainment is, to me, a tool for achieving the more elementary basic needs. We all come here to be entertained. I suspect, if this board were to go down, none of us would starve or die. I do not get the impression that we are nurturing that level of codependency such that our contributions are elementary elements of an individuals survival.

4: Category for a specific human motivation? I tend to think of this on a scale of caring a lot (all the f***s given) or not caring at all (no f***s given). I would also add that we can prioritize our own place based on whether we give these f***s with our own interests as a priority or whether we do so with other people's interests as a priority (I sorta elaborated on this in a response to Doc Cam).

However, that is my own model for motivation and prioritization. There are countless others published by fancy smartypants people that went to college a lot and are clean cut nice folks. I ain't. My model for "give two sh*ts (or not) for me or give two sh*ts (or not) for thee" is just a simple dual axis. Others have a 5 or 6 or 7 or more element list of human needs.

5: Assigning motivations to a category, for me, is answered in 4, above. Am I the priority, or the group? Do I care about the consequences or process for prioritizing myself or the group, or not? I do not see much consequence in the assignment of a motivation. And, I am not sure I even understand your question here.

Summary of it all - We do not describe the weather rules. We do notice the weather conditions, and we dress accordingly. When we enter the fray of a forum like this, we accept the "weather" conditions. We accept the community conditions. And we either absorb them and make the community a priority and go along, we kick against the pricks and get what's ours, or some combination or balance of all of it. It is not binary. We can also kick like a mule while making the group a priority. We may be shameless in doing so, we may be conscientious. The conditions take into account that we are all having our own experience and contributing to the experience, within this silo or bubble.

The rules? Meh, they are for lawyers and moderators and stuff. They tell us how we ought to engage if we want to be here, but the actual engagement involves all the conditions, including an overheated metaphorical track. There are no rules for how to be on this board and also say that the insurrection labels are overblown, simplistic and counterproductive. But, the conditions here dictate that if one thinks that, they better have some thick skin and an umbrella that can deflect falling manure.

[Cultellus]

Res,

Here is an image to represent the differences between the rules and conditions.

[Jersey Girl]

Do we have a way to search the archived posts yet? I'm looking for some of my previous posts and it would help if I didn't have to reinvent the wheel for a new post I'm working on.

Also, should we pin these moderation threads to the top of each forum or not? I think they should be pinned.

[canpakes]

Do we have a way to search the archived posts yet? I'm looking for some of my previous posts and it would help if I didn't have to reinvent the wheel for a new post I'm working on.

Also, should we pin these moderation threads to the top of each forum or not? I think they should be pinned.

Jersey Girl -

To search for the older ones, use the advanced search window, select the preferred forum, and then input your name (in author field) with an asterisk immediately preceding it -

*Jersey Girl

This will bring up many posts from your full history, going back to 2006.

From there, you may be able to narrow down the selection by keyword for the text you want to find.

[Jersey Girl]

Do we have a way to search the archived posts yet? I'm looking for some of my previous posts and it would help if I didn't have to reinvent the wheel for a new post I'm working on.

Also, should we pin these moderation threads to the top of each forum or not? I think they should be pinned.

Jersey Girl -

To search for the older ones, use the advanced search window, select the preferred forum, and then input your name (in author field) with an asterisk immediately preceding it -

*Jersey Girl

This will bring up many posts from your full history, going back to 2006.

From there, you may be able to narrow down the selection by keyword for the text you want to find.

Will try that, thanks!

[Jersey Girl]

I had some success with that, canpakes! Thanks again!

[Res Ipsa]

Having gone back and reread Shades' ruling on sexual harassment, I need to clarify the basis for the deletion. The deleted language was sexual harassment as Shades has defined it. However, sexual harassment is permissible in Spirit Prison. The language needed to be deleted because it exceeded the NC-17 standard, i.e., it was pornographic. It also was an attack that involved a family member.

Under the present state of the rules, sexual harassment as Shades has defined it is permissible in Prison and Telestial. Pornographic content and attacks involving family members is not. We don't have a three strikes or four strikes or similar policy with respect to rule violations.

you may not, but Shades clearly does. His handling of the Hungarian poster and ldsfaqs speak to that.

Maybe this would be a discussion for a mod thread, but the definition of pornography is "sexually explicit." The definition for "explicit" is: "stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt."

in my opinion, sexual harassment is a way to harass someone by making sexual comments specific to the sex of that person. Therefore, sexual harassment is, by definition, "sexually explicit." I would argue that if pornography is deleted, sexual harassment should be deleted as well.

On the other hand, who gives a f*Celestial Kingdom. Just reading this makes me f*cking sick to my stomach.

...sexual harassment as Shades has defined it is permissible in Prison and Telestial....

Great. a private community where sexual discrimination is "permissible," by command of the organizer. what a f*cking shameful world we live in.

I thought moving this to the mod thread was a good idea. Shades issued his ruling on sexual harassment weeks ago. The ruling is clear that sexual harassment in Paradise/Terrestial is deleted from the post or moved to Prison/Telestial, whichever is more appropriate to the post. Shades also included his own definition of "sexual harassment" that is much broader than pornographic language. I disagree with your parsing of the language, as it would equate "you are a boy" with a graphic description of a sex act.

To my knowledge, Shades does not have a set number of violations that automatically leads to a suspension or to being placed on the queue. As I understand it, the purposes of any kind of sanction is not punitive but to encourage rule compliance. In both of the two cases you mention, my understanding is that Shades resorted to using the queue only after being convinced that the person simply would not comply with the rules. It's a matter of judgment and how the person responds to less drastic feedback.

[Marcus]

I disagree with your parsing of the language, as it would equate "you are a boy" with a graphic description of a sex act.

That's an irrelevant obfuscation that depends upon parsing parts of definitions that are not part of the overall discussion, and bypasses the point of my comment on that:

in my opinion, sexual harassment is a way to harass someone by making sexual comments specific to the sex of that person. Therefore, sexual harassment is, by definition, "sexually explicit."

moving on.

In both of the two cases you mention, my understanding is that Shades resorted to using the queue only after being convinced that the person simply would not comply with the rules.

which is pretty much how I started my post, so I'm not sure what your point is. Arguing that there is not 'a set number of violations' is just putting focus on a minor detail in a way that obfuscates the issue.

[Jersey Girl]

RI can you just cut to the chase and ask Shades to look in here and comment as he has time?