Announcement: New Infraction System and Revised Rules

I want to make all members aware that on Monday, July 22nd, Political Forum will begin using an entirely new infraction system. The new system is a points-based system like that used on many other message boards.

For those of you who may not be familiar with the way such systems work, it's rather simple. Each infraction has a certain point value, depending on the severity of the infraction; and for each infraction, the points expire after a pre-determined period of time - again, depending on the severity of the infraction. Various disciplinary measures (mostly temporary bans) kick in automatically at certain point levels, up to and including permanent bans. Members have the right to appeal individual infractions, but not the automatic bans, either temporary or permanent. The number is the same for everyone, and if you hit it, you're gone.

The rules have also been rewritten. You'll find that there's not much substantive difference between the new rules and the old rules. Most of the rewrite was just to simplify and (hopefully) clarify some of the language. a couple of the rules have been loosened up a bit, a couple are more tightly defined. The only thing that's completely new is what I call the "put up or shut up" rule, Rule # 10. This is a rule that I doubt will be invoked very often, but the point of it is to prevent otherwise substantive discussions from being derailed by posters repeatedly asserting unsubstantiated factual claims to support their arguments. It's not something we're going to do casually, but it is a tool we may use from time to time if asked to do so and if we feel it is warranted. I doubt it will ever be of much use in the Conspiracy forums, for obvious reasons, but may be employed in some of the other areas of the board.

Other than that, the ground rules are pretty much the same - you can discuss just about anything you want to discuss, as long as you don't attack other posters or try to bait them into attacking you so that they're the ones who get into trouble. People who can't follow that simple rule will not be allowed to ruin the forum for people who do, and they won't be allowed to stay very long. It's just that simple. And with that, here are the new rules....

- - - Updated - - -

1. ENGLISH IS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THIS WEBSITE

We warmly welcome members from all over the world, and value their insights and perspectives. And, we understand that communicating in English can be difficult for people who did not grow up speaking the language. Nevertheless, we ask that people post their public messages in English so that everyone can understand them, and that material linked on Youtube or other websites also be in English.



2. PERSONAL ATTACKS AND INSULTS

Personal attacks and insults are not tolerated here. When replying to a post, your own post must be about the post to which you are replying, not the poster themselves. Any personal remark about another poster that - in the judgment of a moderator or administrator - could reasonably be regarded as an intentional insult in the context of that discussion will be subject to infraction. Please also keep in mind that simply saying something that's not very nice is not necessarily an insult, nor does the fact that you are offended necessarily mean that you have been insulted.

The rules regarding personal attacks extend not only to individual posters, but to groups as well. For example, calling all Republicans idiots is the same as calling every Republican on the board an idiot, and will not be tolerated. A certain amount of latitude may be granted in discussing the policies and the practices of a political party or other political organization, but posters should be advised that this is thin ice, and be cautious about making remarks that personally insult the members of such parties or organizations. And again, simply saying, "I hate Republicans" does not constitute an attack or an insult against Republicans. "I hate Republicans because they are corrupt" is an attack, because it is attacking the character of all Republicans.

Attacks against public officials, political figures, celebrities, etc, are allowed, as long as they do not violate the guidelines concerning threats or incitement to violence (see below.)



3. FLAMEBAITING

Posts or images that, in the judgment of a moderator or administrator, are specifically intended to provoke emotional responses or personal attacks from other posters, rather than civil discussion, will be considered flamebaiting.


4. HARRASSMENT, BAITING, TAUNTING

Stalking or harassing other members is forbidden, whether in the public forums, through PMs, or in social groups or albums. If you don't like someone, leave them alone or put them on ignore. Any attempts to bait or taunt another poster will be considered infractions, including posters who are banned from the forum or banned from a thread, and thus unable to reply. This includes quoting other members in your signature without permission, or mischaracterizing their statements by quoting them and changing the quotes.


5. TROLLING OR DERAILING A DISCUSSION

If you don't want to discuss the topic, stay out of the thread. Posts that are, in the judgment of moderators or administrators, intended to disrupt a discussion rather than actually contribute to it will be considered trolling. The subject of your post should always be the topic of the thread - not the other members who are posting in it, or anything else extraneous to the topic.


6. THREATS OR INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE

Any post that expresses a direct, indirect, or veiled threat to anyone - whether it be another member, some other individual, or a group in general - or an incitement to violence will be dealt with severely, may result in an immediate permanent banning, and may be reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency. This includes (but is not limited to) what are known as "indirect threats," such as (for example) wishing that public officials or police officers come to harm, or expressing a desire for armed insurrection against the government.


7. RACIAL, ETHNIC, HOMOPHOBIC, GENDER, OR RELIGIOUS SLURS

Any post or image that is - in the judgment of a moderator or administrator - a slur against any such group will be subject to infraction.


8. ATTACKING OR CALLING OUT A MODERATOR

Moderators are volunteers who work very hard and make a number of personal sacrifices to make the community as welcoming as possible. They may not always be right, because they're human - but they will always act in good faith and with the best of intentions, and this forum would not be possible without their efforts. When they're posting on the forums, feel free to debate and argue with them just as you would any other poster, but attacking or calling out a moderator who is acting in their official capacity is against the rules. If you have questions about a specific moderator decision, feel free to send a PM to that moderator, an administrator, or the site owner. Or, alternatively, members can always start threads in the Feedback forum to ask the entire staff questions about specific moderator actions or general questions about forum rules.


9. PROFANITY

Any posts, signatures, or images that are considered obscene or profane are forbidden, as well as any links to any such material. This includes (but is not limited to) profane language and pornographic images. Keep in mind that profanity in a relatively obscure language is still profanity. We'll allow as much latitude as we reasonably can for images or quotes that are directly related to a legitimate event, but if in doubt, you might want to check with a moderator before posting. This website employs a filter to block out banned language, and any attempt to circumvent that filter will be considered an infraction of this rule.


10. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OPINION AND FACT

Anyone is free to express any opinion they wish, as long as it's within the guidelines, or assert any fact. However, for the purpose of civil and productive discussion, it's sometimes important to differentiate between the two. If a poster asserts something as a specific historical fact, they must be prepared to substantiate it as fact if challenged to do so by another poster, through a link that is credible in the judgment of moderators or administrators.

If a moderator calls upon you to verify an assertion and you are unable to do so, you must be willing to acknowledge that it is an opinion rather than a fact, or that - even though you believe it to be true - you can not substantiate it. If you continue to assert as absolute fact something that you can not validate, it may be considered thread derailment. The fact that someone is asking another poster for a cite does not necessarily mean that a moderator will agree that one is necessary, and asking for frivolous cites may also be regarded as thread derailment.




11. THREAD CREATION

The opening post of a thread sets the topic and the tone of the discussion. It should contain a member's opinions or questions with sufficient elaboration to establish a foundation for respectful discussion and debate. Threads should not be posted in the wrong forum, or be duplicates of other threads and/or topics (creating multiple threads with fundamentally the same topic is not allowed). Images, links, quotations, etc., should be used to support a member's opinion, not to replace it. Thread titles should be a description of the thread topic (and if not they may be altered by the moderators). Whether a thread has sufficiently set a basis for respectful debate on the thread topic will be at the discretion of the moderators.


12. AVATARS

Avatars and profile pictures are governed by the same rules regarding other content - images that are obscene, insulting to any individual or group as defined in Rules # 7 or 9, or violate Rules # 3, 4, 6, or 9, are not allowed and are subject to infraction.



13. SIGNATURES

Signatures must comply with all applicable forum rules, especially those on 'Flamebaiting' and 'Personal Attacks'. The use of quotations from other members in a signature is subject to the express consent of the member being quoted. Signatures should not contain more than one link, and links should not be primarily intended to advertise or sell any product, service or other forum. In order to keep signatures reasonable in size (to prevent them from overpowering the posts in a thread) the normally accepted criteria is that they should not be larger in total than 4 lines at normal (size 2) text size.


14. MULTIPLE USER ACCOUNTS

Multiple user accounts are not allowed. The use of anonymous proxy IP addresses and systems, which are often used to hide identities for the purposes of creating multiple accounts, is also prohibited. Usage of these tools can lead to immediate and permanent banning.


15. QUOTES, LINKS, AND ADVERTISING

No commercial advertising is permitted anywhere on the forum - links in posts must be relevant to the discussion, and must not be intended simply to direct members to another website. Quotes and links should be used to support a member's opinion, not to replace it - all posts containing them should also contain the poster's own comments (subject and description do not count). All quotes from other sources must be given appropriate credit, preferably with a link to the original article - long articles should be quoted from and/or summarized, not quoted in their entirety.

Linking to websites that require user registration is discouraged, but where it cannot be avoided notice should be given that that is the case. No links should involve any sites or material that are illegal or pornographic, and warnings should be posted with any links to material that might be considered 'graphic' or 'offensive' (and such links should only be posted when strictly relevant to the discussion).

 

Oh, of course. That's just an illustrative example. "All liberals, all conservatives, all libertarians, etc." Phrases like "rethuglifacist," "*******," and pseudo-Parkeresque witticisms of that nature would also fall into that category.

I don't think that would really fit the spirit of the example. Depending on the context, it might be some sort of other infraction, or just something that falls more into the category of "snotty thing to say." Which, in and of itself, is not against the rules.

In many ways, the two rules are almost identical, but we're differentiating between political belief systems and innate personal characteristics like gender, ethnicity, etc.

 

That's a great question. I would say that, in general, that might be construed more as derailing or trolling - but it would again depend on the context. It's entirely legitimate to question the veracity or integrity of a source, but when you start casting aspersions on people who read such a source, you're getting off the topic of the thread. There's nothing wrong with questioning the reliability or the integrity of a source, but you have to stop short of questioning that of another poster.

"Thomas Friedman is a moron and a liar." - no problem.

"Thomas Friedman is a moron and a liar, what kind of a person would believe him?" - probably crossing the line there.

That's where the rule will probably be most useful, in the middle of threads. If an OP is based on a false source, that's already covered by the thread creation rule - if the source is BS, then it hasn't "sufficiently set a basis for respectful debate." The problem we're trying to address here is when people refute someone else's argument by making unsubstantiated claims, because it can completely derail an otherwise productive discussion.

 

Yes, but the points didn't actually mean anything. So there was really no point to that point system. It was entirely subjective. Now they do have an objective meaning, because when you hit certain levels, consequences kick in automatically. No more, "don't ever do that again or we shall have no choice but to remind you not to do it again." The numbers matter now.