Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Draft SMRT forum rules

After a flurry of activity this morning, we've come up with a draft of the forum rules. I've seperated the suggestions into Rules and Values. The former being "Follow these or else", the latter being "Please respect these values - they encourage healthy debate".


Absolute minimum:

RULES

  • No Trolling (need to define this)

  • Embedded pics/videos should be tasteful

  • Warnings will be handed out for the breaking of Rules or the habitual violation of Values. After accruing 3 warnings, this may (at the discretion of the Moderators) subject the user to {insert something nasty here}.





The following values we could probably stick at the top of the forums, as a "Read This First" or something

VALUES
  • No Preaching (need to define this)

  • Cite your sources as often as possible

  • Be civil, but creative cursing can be an asset

  • No mention of the missing "a" in SMRT

  • Be rational

  • Be open-minded / wear a thick skin

  • Have fun

  • The forums are intended to be self-policing and democratic

  • Flagging posts shouldn't be done to harass other people



Not restrictive enough? Something missing?

Let us know what you think...

42 comments:

  1. I think it's great, except there is an 'a' missing in SMRT. I thought you guys were supposed to be smart 'n all so, like what's up?

    ReplyDelete
  2. When I slap you upside the head, THAT will smart.

    We are SMRT. It's different.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Embedded pics/videos should be tasteful

    ??

    Well that's a whole pile of discussion right there. Who are the arbiters of taste?

    ReplyDelete
  4. mentioning the 'A' is the first sign of trolling

    ReplyDelete
  5. stew
    Well that's a whole pile of discussion right there. Who are the arbiters of taste?

    Broken trum rules?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Where is the all females will shut up, sit in the corner, and just agree with the men rule? That needs to be down in writing, before the women folk get all uppity and claim equality and woman's right crap.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Stew wrote Who are the arbiters of taste?

    Good question, Stew.

    Personally, I would like to think that it'd be the forum community as a whole. Certainly, different people have different standards - but how else do you tell people to not post schlongs everywhere?

    Would you prefer that this be placed in the Values section instead? Or do you think we shouldn't attempt to regulate schlong-spam? Shouldn't the moderators have some responsibility to assess "acceptability"? Or should we just let people report stuff as they see fit?

    ReplyDelete
  8. See....my first ever trolling attempt and I get slapped upside the head.

    We got this troll thing licked.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Try inserting something nasty in me and I'll do something about it......and it will be swift and violent.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You might want to warn the fuckers that they they are entering a satire enriched zone....
    Just sayin'

    I don't care one way or the other but I think that is part of our identity for now at least.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Define 'trolling'. Besides that mentioned by Tilia.

    ReplyDelete
  12. LAOF,

    We need the Raytractors to define that. That's why we left it that way.

    Give us some definitions of what you consider to be trolling, guys. It's your forum, what constitutes trolling to you?

    ReplyDelete
  13. When everyone here starts behaving like StevenJ, I'm outta here!/sarcasm off

    ReplyDelete
  14. When the masses start hollering, "Ban the Bastard!" ban him.

    We need to expect a certain amount of aggravation and disdain from some people.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dale,

    I'm convinced SJ must be on some heavy narcotics. That's the only possible way I can see any rational human being putting up with the level of BS at Ray's on a consistent basis the way that guy does and still remain as calm as he does.

    ReplyDelete
  16. NM,

    When you open the doors to the new place, get out of the way real fast. I don't want to see youu trampled by everybody rushing in. K? Be careful.....

    ReplyDelete
  17. I would define preaching as "refusal to engage in discourse, choosing instead to summarily condemn based on scripture."

    This should followed up with the Retaliation Corrolary: You are allowed to flame if you're being condemned to Hell.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I don’t know what they have to say,
    It makes no difference anyway --
    Whatever it is, I’m against it!
    No matter what it is,
    or who commenced it,
    I’m against it.

    Your proposition may be good
    But let’s have one thing understood --
    Whatever it is, I’m against it!
    And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it,
    I’m against it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. oops, forgot to include my cite, you fascists!

    From "Duck Soup"

    also-

    "Go, and never darken my towels again!"

    ReplyDelete
  20. man my trolling goes unnoticed....

    :(

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hapless troll says,

    "I think it's great, except there is an 'a' missing in SMRT. I thought you guys were supposed to be smart 'n all so, like what's up?"

    It's an acronym, read the masthead you blithering idiot!

    ***Frogi'El practicing for the inevitable****

    ReplyDelete
  22. Beamer,
    We knew it was you, and I second that motion.

    Pass out the barkas.

    ReplyDelete
  23. BF,
    That was funny the first time I ever saw it and it still is.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Froggie When the masses start hollering, "Ban the Bastard!" ban him.

    We need to expect a certain amount of aggravation and disdain from some people.


    I agree with this entirely. I don't expect to be cruising through the forums looking for things to be offended or annoyed by. I think it more likely that you folks will point out someone who deserves a whack, and then the mods will roll into action.
    ---

    @LAOF Define 'trolling'.

    As we don't seem to be able to come up with a quick description, I'll default to the Wikipedia entry:

    someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

    Without delving into the linguistics of it, this seems to identify the spirit of our Forum Foe, and provides a standard by which the Mods can figure out if we've got an infestation.

    ---

    @ Mudley so where is the forum?

    The site is administered by MacGuyver, and the forums are coming up to speed. Once it's ready, I'm sure he'll make an announcement.

    ---

    @ TheShaggy: I would define preaching as "refusal to engage in discourse, choosing instead to summarily condemn based on scripture."

    Sounds good to me. I placed this one in the "Values" category, as I'm perfectly willing to be preached to, up to a point. The topic being what it is (as Froggies pointed out), we should expect it to happen.

    ---

    Thanks for the feedback so far, everyone. Keep it coming if you've got stuff to say. Barring that, we'll find a way to smoosh it all into a more eloquent form, and post it soon.

    ReplyDelete
  25. QAlso from Duck Soup,

    "They got guns,
    We got guns,
    All God's chillun got guns!
    I'm gonna walk all over the battlefield,
    'Cause all God's chillun got guns!"

    ReplyDelete
  26. Can we have a mute Froggie button? Ya know so that every now then we can mute Froggie just because.

    ReplyDelete
  27. What if we just have a 'preaching' catagory, and anyone who starts condemning us to hell gets their posts transferred to there?

    I still love the 'ghost bible' project, and I reckon that it's mere existence would make would-be preachers think twice... if they ever thought once.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Out of order!

    I am invoking Roberts Rules of Order.
    You haven't got a motion on the floor and no quorum.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I like the ghost bible function also.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Perhaps I should be muted. Especially when I start saying stuff like,

    Now is the winter of our dishcloth tent.

    ReplyDelete
  31. One last rulz suggestion.

    Anyone who says: "God is the necessary precondition for logic by the impossibility of the contrary" is to be fed to the hyenas. In pieces.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Char'Els said...
    One last rulz suggestion.

    Anyone who says: "God is the necessary precondition for logic by the impossibility of the contrary" is to be fed to the hyenas. In pieces.
    --------

    I would hope that there would not be enough pieces left to sustain a fieldmouse for a single day......

    ReplyDelete
  33. I am in no mood to entertain the shenanigans of some presupp fuck tard.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Don't pay Dan's latest post (re. the "owning" of an evolutionist). any attention then, Frogster. It's already up to 200 posts...

    I flamed, then immediately filtered all "Debunking Atheists" emails into my Junk folder...

    ReplyDelete
  35. Froggie said:

    I would hope that there would not be enough pieces left to sustain a fieldmouse for a single day......

    Indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Would the photoshopped pics of Ray and Kirk and TB be considered god taste?

    Would "Sye Ten B" be an example of trolling? Or presup in general?

    How about Shiver(Curtis)'s habit of long copy and paste jobs from Ray's?

    I'm not feeling well, so...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCvz8y_DUSY

    ReplyDelete
  37. Rufus asked Would the photoshopped pics of Ray and Kirk and TB be considered god taste?

    Without any standard to guide me, my personal opinion would be "No, but they'd be funny as hell" and thus worthy of remaining. Even if it got to the point of me being offended, I wouldn't touch em

    Rufus asked Would "Sye Ten B" be an example of trolling? Or presup in general?

    It depends. I was willing to put up with it more than most, so for a long time I would have said No. At this point, however, it's clear he's just trolling for attention or dissention or whatever.

    If he shows up, I wouldn't do anything until the community asked for it, and both Nonmagic & Mac were consulted.

    Presupp in general, I would be tolerant of. Assuming the person was willing to actually discuss things, and didn't just ask the same questions over and over again.

    Rufus asked How about Shiver(Curtis)'s habit of long copy and paste jobs from Ray's?

    Me personally, I'd be tolerant. If the tolerance was abused, I'd possibly give him a warning, assuming people other mods agreed

    ----

    In short, free expression and democracy are what's gonna keep this place lively, not a forum mod with delusions of grandeur...

    ReplyDelete
  38. Personally,

    I would get rid of the rules and not bother citing the values.

    There is absolutely no requirement for either. If a poster does start acting like a complete 'A' hole, warn them in the thread. I don't mean them telling someone else that they are an idiot or anything like that. Some people are idiots and we should be free to point this out. I am talking about unwarranted and unnecessary abuse or spamming or other such activity. I have been on many sites with large numbers of posters with no stated rules where there has not been any problems.

    Lets not start forming committees and drafting legislation. A statement about the community's intent in the banner should be enough to set the tone. After that, the site will rise or fall in accordance with the quality of what is posted there. As it should.

    I also don't think that a small group of moderators should be deciding what is abuse or bad taste. Let democracy (true democracy, not the 'biggest wallet is right' kind, reign!) Let the community consensus be the guide.....comrades :P

    I would rethink the SMRT bit also. It strikes me as arrogant and self aggrandizing even without the 'a'. I certainly wouldn't go to a theistic site called WERE RGHT (Western European Religious Education and Reestablishment Group of Higher Theism.) and expect to be taken seriously. The very easily drawn implication is that atheists are smart and theists are dumb. The fact that this is generally true is not the point :P

    ReplyDelete
  39. I just wanted to add that I am assuming that this site is aimed at adults. So even if you decide to post a picture of an enormous penis or use terrible collections of letters like FUCK (oh my GOD!!!) or worse even, dare I?, dare I....yeah I dare CUNT. It's just a word, it won't hurt you honest. While it would be definitely better if the above were not done as it really doesn't add anything and 'shocking' in general isn't.; if you can't handle seeing these things then in my not-so-humble opinion we are better off without you. We really don't need the 'offended' types clogging up the debate. If most people don't like something that is complete aside of any debate going on, then by all means chop it. My guess is, it simply won't be an issue.

    ReplyDelete
  40. We've already moved to SMRT, CChimp. Cmon over and join us if you haven't already done so

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.