POSTING RULES & GUIDELINES - Amendment 19.05.2015

[Surfcrest]

Members,

Here it is, from one of our very esteemed members a proposal for a new Rule protecting members from fictitious or malicious posts about them by another member.

This is really not a big change from how I've been administering the Board since 2013, just that it is soon to be in print and officially part of the Rules to be moderated. The key for members to consider here is that the onus is on the complainant to send me a PM, not to wait for me to deem any post "inappropriate".

Please let me know your feedback, if any. After 5 days, it will be permanently incorporated into our Posting Rules & Guidelines.

Surfcrest


"x. Satiric and comedic writing is encouraged on this board. However, posters are reminded that with the privilege of freedom of speech comes the responsibility to use that freedom wisely to the benefit of the wider community (in this case the board and its members).
On receipt of a (PM'd) complaint about any article, the Moderator may deal with it as he believes will be in the best interests of the board and its members. This can range from a PM to the poster and complainant suggesting the post was OTT (Over The Top) up to and including suspension/dismissal from the board if the post was truly injurious in any respect.
However, a word of caution. Frivolous complaints thrown out may come back to bite the complainant on the arse."

[Smiles]

An unwieldy can of worms, ready to be released. In my opinion.
I fail to see why this is necessary in any way. The Guidelines as they stand now already cover issues of 'harassment'.



Sawatdee occasionally has to deal with breaches of Board etiquette known as
тАв 'trolling -
тАв 'flaming' -
тАв тАШlink dumpingтАЩ -
тАв тАШpersonal attacks and harassing behaviourтАЩ -
тАв and тАШspammingтАЩ -

These behaviours can be difficult to specifically identify, and are also difficult to administer.
Sawatdee Moderator(s) will deal with these issues on a case-by-case basis, recognising that these behaviours can be unintended, innocuous or harmless such that action need not be taken. Most times an explanatory PM to the member will be sufficient.

[a447]

"Personal attacks and harassing behaviour" does not explicitly cover the the posting of untruths and misleading information by one member about another, which was the core of my complaint. It covers such behaviour where one member can, for example, make 65 posts about another since the beginning of the year. That's harassment on an industrial scale.

I don't think anyone would want to ban satirical posts. I like your earlier suggestion which would allow untruths in posts so long as the "victim" (for want of a better word) agreed.

So something along the lines of :"Personal attacks and harassing behaviour, including the posting of false and misleading information by one poster about another without his permission."

That would cover it, as far as I I'm concerned.

Wouldn't it just be easier all round to make a447 a Moderator?

[goji]

How about "Posting fictional reports about other members is not permitted unless the other member agreed. Offending posts will be deleted. Offending members may be banned from the board (particularly any who generally detract from the board)"

[Smiles]

Wouldn't it just be easier all round to make a447 a Moderator?
:)) :))


" ... Offending members may be banned from the board (particularly any who generally detract from the board) ... "
Oh please please, let's just leave any threatening notions of banning members by the wayside.

[a447]

Yes, I'll give you that one, Kommie. That was funny.

I like goji's reference to banning members who detract from the board.

But if that were ever to happen it would have to be the sole responsibility of the moderator, and not be an issue put to the membership - we don't want a popularity contest.

[Smiles]

" ... I like goji's reference to banning members who detract from the board ... "
One man's detraction is another man's attraction. Just like a Thai GoGo boy.
One might also say, a massively slippery slope ... but I'll drop it because I can't get it to rhyme.

[joe552]

The posting guidelines are of little interest to me, but I'm bored, so I'll comment. We've had one example of kommie going a bit far (in a447's eyes) in his fictional accounts of their trip to Malaysia. As I posted on that thread, I didn't think many members would believe those accounts were true. But a447 obviously felt they went beyond the normal jesting and joshing we like on this board, so he should have some recourse. Is it difficult to delete a thread where a member feels they've been personally attacked or injured in some way? Surely Surfcrest has that "power" already?

a447, I understand your feelings, and think something should be done. I think Surfcrest should exercise his authority as Moderator and simply delete the thread.

[a447]

Smiles, I think the final arbiter of what detracts from the board is the owner, as he's the one who pays the bills. It's not really up to the members ; we can only suggest that damage is being done to the board 's reputation and that potential members may discouraged from joining, or members may not want to post here. I think comments to that effect appeared on the board last year.

And Joe, deleting the thread doesn't address the original question or prevent such an issue arising in the future. It's no good just deleting an example of such behaviour - the behaviour itself must be addressed. Unfortunately, this discussion got bogged down into one about specific posts, whereas I was trying to address a wider principle.

Present members are aware of the travel reports and now know they are false and are meant as a joke so I don't see a problem in them remaining on the board, so long as they are not constantly dragged up for the purpose of misleading new members. That's why I asked Surfcrest to prevent further links to them. But leave them here.

The issue of harassment is a separate issue. However, the guidelines already cover that and it is up to the moderator to implement them or not. I think constant harassment may bring a negative aspect to the board and so those guidelines should be implemented but that's not my decision. No-one can force a moderator to act.

So we are dealing with two issues here. One is already covered. The other - posting lies about another member - needs to be addressed.

The suggestions made by Goji and Surfcrest seem adequate.

[PeterUK]

Why does this amendment remind me of that old saying about a camel being a horse designed by a committee?

[a447]

Surfcrest, why not just sick to the suggestion that you made in the thread :


I will add a Rule that no member can talk about the individual behind a handle, about anything they do outside of this Board without their specific permission or unless that person has mentioned whatever it is that they have done, here on this Board already.

The suggested wording in your post above is unwieldy. The simpler, the better.