Fora Rules

[eigen]

Below are the Fora rules, based off of discussion here and pre-move. The are not unalterably set in stone, but have incorporated the discussion and comments here.

1. Don't personally attack or harass other users. You know what crosses this line, don't do it.
2. Do not feed the trolls. Let them carry on with little fanfare.
3. Don't carry baggage from one thread to another. Sure, you may have a disagreement with another user in a different thread, but carrying that on into each new thread either of you start is not productive.
4. Don't be a vigilante. If someone is doing something wrong, report them and move on.
5. No spam. You know what this is.
6. No advertising. Whether it's your newest paper, newest book, a new EduTech website or something else- the place to advertise it is not here.
7. Do not "out" other users. Do not threaten to "out" other users.
8. Use standard spelling, punctuation and paragraphs on your posts.

Should you feel any of these rules are bad, wrong, or see the need to modify them: post here and keep the discussion going!

[ergative]

How about: Use standard spelling, punctuation, and paragraphing

(edited to change 'proper' to 'standard', to recognize a necessary balance between prescriptivism and healthy language.)

[eigen]

How about: Use standard spelling, punctuation, and paragraphing

(edited to change 'proper' to 'standard', to recognize a necessary balance between prescriptivism and healthy language.)

Edited that in as number 8 with a slight modification- does it look good?

[mystictechgal]

While we don't want people to post links to their latest papers/books/etc., we do want people to be able to celebrate them here. Suggest keeping #6, but clarify by adding "No links" to the end of it.

[mystictechgal]

#4 might be read by someone as though reporting something that they think is wrong will result in an action being taken. Suggest adding "Leave it to the moderators to decide." (or something along those lines) to avoid potential controversy in the future.

[mystictechgal]

On another board I used to participate in (and theoretically am still a moderator for) they included a thumbnail synopsis of the rules at the top of all of their fora. A large part of it boiled down to "intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other posters IS required at all times". (That's a direct quote from the web site; we might need to reword slightly.)

I don't know if this software allows a synopsis to be added, but doing so avoids posters claiming that they didn't see that x behavior wasn't permitted when they agreed to the TOS. Whether we can add one, or not, I have always liked that particular stricture and think we should add something similar.

If nothing else, it gives the webmaster (and the moderators, if the webmaster so chooses) more latitude to police the tone of the posts hosted here, when it is deemed necessary. If you are the webmaster or a moderator with the power to remove/edit/ban for content, you WILL get these challenges. Every one of them will invoke 1st amendment rights. That's great, and moderation must be done with a light hand (IMO) when those issues come up, but, ultimately, s/he who pays for the playground sets the rules for the playground. Even if it is only in labor, the webmaster (and maybe the mods) "pay(s)" for this playground. Best, I think, to spell something like this out if this is a value we have.

Sure, we could add something about ad hominem attacks, but I know from experience that there are a lot of people (including those who are highly educated) who don't know (or claim not to recognize) what that means. I like the simplicity of this one and have had more than one occasion where I have been able to effectively invoke it. (The other board involves popular television programs and includes an Off-Topic section for non-tv discussion. It's gotten a whole lot more volatile than anything I've seen on CHE — but we are about to leave the world of CHE and may end up with members we don't expect who have their own axe to grind. Been there; best be prepared for it.)

[aside]

Apologies if I have missed it elsewhere, but what will be the process for dealing with violators? 

[polly_mer]

Apologies if I have missed it elsewhere, but what will be the process for dealing with violators? 

We do have people set up with moderation functions who can edit/delete posts, warn posters regarding behavior, put on violators on watch, and ban those who are severe violators. 

We definitely need public rules and a general community understanding of the limits of the rules.  That's a discussion for the open so we can see what the understanding is from many viewpoints.  It's less clear to me that we can do a public discussion on the penalties for violation right now and have that be useful.  During this alpha/early beta phase, we need more practice as a moderator group on just the mechanics of how to edit/delete/move/split as well as the mechanics on the communications available to us to discuss just as a moderator group.  The process and details on what constitutes a minor, major, huge violation of the rules with formal levels of moderation will evolve as we get some experience and have discussions.

Did I answer your question or have I missed it?

[aside]

Apologies if I have missed it elsewhere, but what will be the process for dealing with violators? 

We do have people set up with moderation functions who can edit/delete posts, warn posters regarding behavior, put on violators on watch, and ban those who are severe violators. 

We definitely need public rules and a general community understanding of the limits of the rules.  That's a discussion for the open so we can see what the understanding is from many viewpoints.  It's less clear to me that we can do a public discussion on the penalties for violation right now and have that be useful.  During this alpha/early beta phase, we need more practice as a moderator group on just the mechanics of how to edit/delete/move/split as well as the mechanics on the communications available to us to discuss just as a moderator group.  The process and details on what constitutes a minor, major, huge violation of the rules with formal levels of moderation will evolve as we get some experience and have discussions.

Did I answer your question or have I missed it?

Yes, I understand that there are administrators/moderators with the powers you list.  My question was directed more at the part you say it's not time to discuss yet and perhaps not in public.  Thanks.

[eigen]

I think it's totally worth discussing what to do with violations- there's another thread in this very same forum discussing moderation philosophy:

http://thefora.org/index.php?topic=5.0

I think it's good to separate the "what are the rules" discussion from "what do we do when the rules are broken" discussion.

I'll move over to posting in there to add my thoughts on how to handle issues when they arise, based on my experiences.

[miss jane marple]

Let's not forget the rule that forbids discussion of moderators or moderation activity on any thread, with a penalty of immediate banning.

Really? Moderators will be enforcing not only content but tone? Locking threads? Demanding that posters stay on-topic? Being active in every discussion, no matter how trivial? So, for example, if the conversation is getting "heated", someone who posts cute kitten pictures (the former signal for "step back") will get warned by one or more moderators for being off-topic?

Somehow the old forum creaked along without this kind of heavy moderation, but now....

[namazu]

Let's not forget the rule that forbids discussion of moderators or moderation activity on any thread, with a penalty of immediate banning.

Really? Moderators will be enforcing not only content but tone? Locking threads? Demanding that posters stay on-topic? Being active in every discussion, no matter how trivial? So, for example, if the conversation is getting "heated", someone who posts cute kitten pictures (the former signal for "step back") will get warned by one or more moderators for being off-topic?

Somehow the old forum creaked along without this kind of heavy moderation, but now....

I don't think anyone's proposing that such heavy-handed moderation be the norm...

Eigen's proposed guidelines in the first post of this thread seem reasonable to me.

[fast_and_bulbous]

Part of the issue for myself is that I participate in several forums, one of which is hugely popular and heavily moderated, another basically celebrates verbal jousting. however I have never moderated before myself. Have any of us here have direct experience with moderating the older CHE forum? I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that there was stuff going on behind the scenes where egregious material was being removed semi-regularly.

Some forums do enforce "be nice" but I understand this place is what it is. I am not advocating heavy-handed moderation and am completely on board with eigen's lighter, more finessed approach. My whole intent when I got on the bandwagon to create this place was to basically have the old forum transitions as seamlessly as possible to a new home. I think we are well on the way to accomplishing that. I could check out tomorrow and feel pretty assured this place would still be puttering (or humming) along.

[eigen]

Let's not forget the rule that forbids discussion of moderators or moderation activity on any thread, with a penalty of immediate banning.

Really? Moderators will be enforcing not only content but tone? Locking threads? Demanding that posters stay on-topic? Being active in every discussion, no matter how trivial? So, for example, if the conversation is getting "heated", someone who posts cute kitten pictures (the former signal for "step back") will get warned by one or more moderators for being off-topic?

Somehow the old forum creaked along without this kind of heavy moderation, but now....

I feel like I've stepped into an alternate universe, and am quite confused as to where any of the policies you're upset about are coming from.

This is a compilation of suggested forum rules from the multi-page thread on the old forums.

I also have no idea how you got "immediate banning" for anything, since the discussion on moderation policy explicitly says banning should be a last resort only after repeated attempts to work with someone, and even then only in cases where a strong argument could be made that the person is actively harming others (outing RL identities, targeted harassment, etc.).

Could you elaborate on your post? I'm reading a lot of anger, but no suggestions of what you think the rules and policies should be, and that's what this thread is for.

[Juvenal]

I'm not sure about the suggestion of adding "no links" to #6.  Does that mean no links to anything, like an article relevant to the discussion, from some other web site?  I don't recall any particular problems with links to other CHE articles or IHE ones in the past.

About "refinement"?  Well, I'm about to make a grilled cheese sandwich, but I plan to put some Parmesan with the sharp cheddar, whole wheat bread with mayo on the grill sides instead of butter.  Does that radiate a certain refinement?  I can't post a link to another kind of grilled cheese sandwich recipe (although I'd never post a personal recipe--Oh, but I seem to have done that!  Darn!) as that might flout the proposed #6?