PROPOSED NEW FORUM RULES

[BackFromUSA]

Hi all

It is 8 days since I proposed an forum makeover ... and the first priority was to reduce the amount of bickering and insulting behaviour that was a clear breach of the rules. In 8 days, I think with some moderation, things have improved.

I have listened to all the feedback and have tried to simplify the current guidelines and added a few new items into the first draft of the PROPOSED new forum rules ... which I am opening up for some feedback and debate. These rules would only apply at this stage to the Saintsational Fan Forum with the other forums yet to be reviewed at this stage.

Please note that this is a different matter to improving or altering the actual forum technical features which I am also working on. Please do not add your feedback regarding forum features here ... but feedback on these rules is welcome.


PROPOSED SAINTSATIONAL FAN FORUM RULES

Saintsational Fan Forum is a St Kilda football club forum open to all ages. Respectful behaviour at all times is essential.

Vigorous debate on St. Kilda Football Club matters is encouraged, as long as there is respect for each other’s opinions. No matter how much you disagree, or dismiss the worth of any opinion posted, your response must be respectful.

REPORT FUNCTION

The forum has a <!> button in each post for ANY poster to report ANY rule breaches anonymously to the moderators.

MODERATING

There will be zero tolerance for baiting, belittling, badgering, bullying or any insulting, abusive, sexist, racist, homophobic or threatening behaviour, or any personal attacks in this Fan Forum or in Private Messages.

The moderation team has the right to edit or delete threads or posts that in their personal opinion breach any of these terms and at their discretion issue official warnings to the offending poster.

MULTIPLE IDENTITIES

Posters found to hold multiple forum identities and using them to add support to their own position within a forum argument will be penalised with two official warnings to their primary forum identity and a permanent ban on secondary identities.

PENALTIES

Three official warnings in a 1 week (7 day) period will result in a 1 month ban.

If a poster receives 3 bans within a 12 month period, it will result in a permanent ban.

The posting of any pornographic material in the forum or via Private Message will result in an immediate permanent ban.

Intentional forum hijacking by starting multiple threads will result in an immediate permanent ban.

Bans will be published for all posters to see.

GRIEVANCES

Please note that all official warnings will be done in private via PM.

Should a Moderator be required to edit a post, this will be shown in the post and a warning and explanation issued in private to that poster via PM.

If a person wishes to discuss this further, please do so with the Moderation team via PM.

The Moderation team have the final say and are here to provide a fun environment for us to celebrate all things St Kilda.

Please accept the umpire's decision and move on.

The above penalty system gives you three chances before your enjoyment of the community will be restricted. Take advantage of those three chances to improve your conduct.

Do not start threads requesting discipline of other members, nor PM the Moderators requesting punishment.

You are entitled to report behaviour you believe contravenes the rules, but it will be at the Moderator discretion as to the punishment required.

COPYRIGHT

Some online articles are subject to copyright laws. When posting articles from any other website, please only post the URL (the link to the original article) - and no more than the first paragraph.

[saintbrat]

re copyright-- would it also be permissable to post a sentence or paragraph that is relevant to discussion- even if not first paragraph.?

[BackFromUSA]

Saintbrat - this is an area I know about! You can quote from the article itself as long as that quote is given context and credited correctly and appropriately.

[saintbrat]

Saintbrat - this is an area I know about! You can quote from the article itself as long as that quote is given context and credited correctly and appropriately.

that's as I have generally endeavoured to do..

[saintsRrising]

COPYRIGHT

Some online articles are subject to copyright laws. When posting articles from any other website, please only post the URL (the link to the original article) - and no more than the first paragraph.

I would suggest rewording as:

* the first para of an article is often irrelevant. (ie may be a piece on all AFL teams and you only want to refer to the St Kilda part)
* that you often only to really want to refer to a particular quote of sentence of an article to make a point, support a hypothesis etc. (ie Watters being quoted that Curren as played well enough to warrant senior selection, or that a player had disposals in the Sandringham game etc).

"When posting articles from any other website, please only post the URL (the link to the original article) - and no more a selected small portion.

[BackFromUSA]

Great suggestion. Makes sense. Thanks.

[ShanghaiSaint]

keep the fighting it makes this place a laugh.. but personal direct attacks should go.

[stinger]

COPYRIGHT

Some online articles are subject to copyright laws. When posting articles from any other website, please only post the URL (the link to the original article) - and no more than the first paragraph.

I would suggest rewording as:

* the first para of an article is often irrelevant. (ie may be a piece on all AFL teams and you only want to refer to the St Kilda part)
* that you often only to really want to refer to a particular quote of sentence of an article to make a point, support a hypothesis etc. (ie Watters being quoted that Curren as played well enough to warrant senior selection, or that a player had disposals in the Sandringham game etc).

"When posting articles from any other website, please only post the URL (the link to the original article) - and no more a selected small portion.

i would agree with this suggestion......not the original proposal.....

[saintspremiers]

BFUSA - do you monitor PM's, ie read them or have access to what is written in them ?

I thought they were private.

Understand they shouldn't be used as a fighting mechanism.

[dragit]

I would think that being able to quote a single line from an article is pretty essential if someone is wanting to address a specific point made… Obviously having the URL as well.

[skeptic]

Vote 1 BFUSA

[saint66au]

BFUSA - do you monitor PM's, ie read them or have access to what is written in them ?

I thought they were private.

Understand they shouldn't be used as a fighting mechanism.

Unless something has changed since my time..Mods/Admin cannot see PMs..they are exactly that..private

[Con Gorozidis]

Vote 1 BFUSA

[Con Gorozidis]

But in all seriousness

Great work what you have done on your policy. And I appreciate your hard work.
Well done.

[BackFromUSA]

BFUSA - do you monitor PM's, ie read them or have access to what is written in them ?

I thought they were private.

Understand they shouldn't be used as a fighting mechanism.

Mods have no access to read PMs (not sure if Admin does or whether they can have) however a person who receives a PM that breaches rules can alert the MODS and this can result an investigation and the appropriate action to resolve the issue as necessary.

[SENsei]

Can I ask what was wrong with the current set of guidelines? From my point of view as the author of them, my criticism has been in the implementation of them, rather than needing to have them re-drafted. I am all for stronger moderation but I must admit, I didn't see a need for new rules.

[matrix]

agreed
didnt think there was anything wrong with what we had just the implementation


errrrr
"These rules would only apply at this stage to the Saintsational Fan Forum with the other forums yet to be reviewed at this stage."

what???

[SENsei]

Can I ask what was wrong with the current set of guidelines? From my point of view as the author of them, my criticism has been in the implementation of them, rather than needing to have them re-drafted. I am all for stronger moderation but I must admit, I didn't see a need for new rules.

Bump.

[dragit]

Can I ask what was wrong with the current set of guidelines? From my point of view as the author of them, my criticism has been in the implementation of them, rather than needing to have them re-drafted. I am all for stronger moderation but I must admit, I didn't see a need for new rules.

Bump.

What I find funny is that you were telling people to flower off if they didn't like the rules... But was that only if it was the set of rules that you wrote?

[SENsei]

Can I ask what was wrong with the current set of guidelines? From my point of view as the author of them, my criticism has been in the implementation of them, rather than needing to have them re-drafted. I am all for stronger moderation but I must admit, I didn't see a need for new rules.

Bump.

What I find funny is that you were telling people to flower off if they didn't like the rules... But was that only if it was the set of rules that you wrote?

Actually not quite. I don't care about the rules as much as the implementation of them. I wondered why the need to change them. Pretty easy to understand I would've thought. Whether I authored them or not is irrelevant, I just wanted to know the thought process behind the need to change. Glad I was able to provide you with a laugh though. Cheers.

[stinger]

Can I ask what was wrong with the current set of guidelines? From my point of view as the author of them, my criticism has been in the implementation of them, rather than needing to have them re-drafted. I am all for stronger moderation but I must admit, I didn't see a need for new rules.

Bump.

errh...let me think......

...they were honoured more in the breach ......and....they weren't enforced...maybe......

[Schillaci]

My visits to Saintsational this year have been fewer than ever before. Probably in part to do with the lack of interest in the present team, though I still listen to every game on line. If the new rules make the forum a place of better Saint's talk then I'm all for it. Find the fact that there needs to be a rule about Multiple Forum Identities laughable. Really? That's sad!

[BackFromUSA]

Apologies for going missing for a week. Had to deal with a family health issue. All good now.

One of the key reasons for PROPOSED re-working the rules were the loopholes that exist. A good example that has been highlighted over the past few weeks is racism on the forum.

The current rule is:

DISCRIMINATION

You may not insult members based on their religion, race, sex, age, political beliefs or sexual orientation. This is a very simple guideline. Saintsational is a community where all members are equal. Any sort of discrimination will not be tolerated at all.

As such the warnings can only be for "racism against members" thus under current rules calling Carlton supporters a racist term or an AFL CEO "greasy" is not against current rules. It also does not "discriminate" against Carlton supporters or the AFL CEO - although they and others may be (rightfully) offended.

To close loopholes like this, I have proposed the following:

"There will be zero tolerance for baiting, belittling, badgering, bullying or any insulting, abusive, sexist, racist, homophobic or threatening behaviour, or any personal attacks in this Fan Forum."

28 words that catch all to replace a couple of paragaphs.

[6621104]

I have always been puzzled at how anonymous individuals can be bullied by another, also anonymous. Many claim to have been of course so I guess somehow that feeling has been created by one of the parties. I would also argue that baiting, badgering and a belligerent manner are legitimate tools of argument, usually used to distract the other party from their stronger position. More fool them if they fall for it. Whilst as an occasional poster but constant reader I find the animosity between certain members here tiresome it is to be expected as after all perhaps the only thing many of us share with our fellow posters is the love of the club. I read this forum for the insights those more local to the team might share, for the laughs and for the petty jealousies that run through many of the threads. It is better than reality TV. So too many rules will stifle true expression. There should be as few as possible and better moderation of the most important rule in any on line forum- the prohibition on hijacking of threads.

[dragit]

I have always been puzzled at how anonymous individuals can be bullied by another, also anonymous. Many claim to have been of course so I guess somehow that feeling has been created by one of the parties. I would also argue that baiting, badgering and a belligerent manner are legitimate tools of argument, usually used to distract the other party from their stronger position. More fool them if they fall for it. Whilst as an occasional poster but constant reader I find the animosity between certain members here tiresome it is to be expected as after all perhaps the only thing many of us share with our fellow posters is the love of the club. I read this forum for the insights those more local to the team might share, for the laughs and for the petty jealousies that run through many of the threads. It is better than reality TV. So too many rules will stifle true expression. There should be as few as possible and better moderation of the most important rule in any on line forum- the prohibition on hijacking of threads.

I tend to agree, I guess a lot comes down to how the mods interpret things…

I liken a lot of the banter (and insults) to what friends would throw around to one another…

Might be just me but… terms such as cabbage, munter, plonker, clown, surrender-eating-cheese-monkey, muppet, spanker etc… although they could be taken as insults, I would hate to see these things edited, removed or given warnings over.

Everyone has different tolerance levels obviously, but it would get mighty boring if all banter was outlawed… and I think a lot of people come here for that stuff over bigfooty. This isn't a place of pure serious football discussion, it's also a place for fun isn't it?