Rule Number 11 Debate thread**Now Voting!!** Poll closes 11/6 @ Noon PDT

About Unstuck
1

This is our first attempt to get into the meat of rule debate. If you have not visited the first phase thread, go here now and cast your vote on the open items.

Here is rule 11 and the poll results, which did not meet the 70% threshold to ratify. (we closed this early as it is not likely to change enough to meet the standard.)

11. Accept these limits. Posting or acting in bad faith to demonstrate a disagreement of the rules or moderation is uncool and not a valuable contribution. Posters who make it a point to find the line frequently should consider other places for their posting that accepts content outside of these guidelines. Likewise, posters who feel that the community standard does not meet their personal moral need or comfort level are free to discuss that as it comes up, but also to find a more suitable community that better matches their tolerance levels

  • 62%I like rule 11 as written.

  • 20%I do not want this rule at all.

  • 16%I want this rule, but it needs discussion and rewriting.

62voters

62total votes

Letā€™s see what happens!

2

So whatā€™s wrong with this rule exactly? Iā€™m not going to reread the other thread to find out.

1 Like
4

I think one objection is that itā€™s a fine attitude but a weird thing to have as a rule.

6 Likes
5

I feel itā€™s redundant in that if people follow the other rules, whether somebody stays or goes follows? Could work it into the introduction to the rules or as an in closing comment. That said if Iā€™m missing something about its function lmk, thatā€™s the only aspect I wanted to discuss about it.

6

A fair criticism. Why is it a rule?

8

Mine was a symbolic vote. We can argue in circles but in the end whatever rules we come up with will be enforced how the moderator chooses to enforce them.

9

Whatā€™s the best eyeroll emoji on this site?

3 Likes
10

Wrong ā€œM,ā€ I voted I like the rule as is.

1 Like
11

Yes, it is largely a semantic issue whether Rule 11 is really a ā€œruleā€ or a ā€œguidelineā€ (posted with the forum rules). In the absence of something like a mission statement, I think Rule 11 (aka Guideline number 1) serves that purpose as framing that this is a community who have agreed to follow the community-derived rules.

I have said it before, and will likely say it again, but I donā€™t like mention of moderator/moderation in these rules/guidelines. Moderators should (in an ideal world) be beholden to the rules/guidelines, even though it almost never works out that perfectly. I am all for saying that forum moderators are tasked with keeping the forum running smoothly and enforcing the rules, but I wouldnā€™t go into any specifics (or mention moderator judgment) in the Rules page.

We believe in community (and an absence of any hierarchies). Community participation. Community voting. Community leaders. Community-derived rules. Community moderators/moderation. Etc.

12

I voted no bc I thought it was redundant.

It being redundant also means I dgaf about it, really.

13

Would it be fair to say that some people think there isnā€™t a real rule here and it might make more sense to fold this into the intro section?

2 Likes
14

yeah, maybe even poll

  1. keep as rule
  2. fold into intro/conclusion about the rules, remove as a stand alone rule
  3. donā€™t need at all

highest % wins and move on, I donā€™t think thereā€™s much controversy here

16

We can have libertarian forum rules even as we discuss the merits of socialism.

2 Likes
17

For starters it should be called the Keed Rule.

18

In this case it could be written before/after the rules but not numbered as a rule.

Pretty sure someone else already pointed this out, so in that case my pony says +1.

19

My objection is that I donā€™t like the ā€žif you donā€˜t like it then leaveā€œ attitude. As others have remarked it is a bit redundant and spelling it out feels unnecessarily ā€¦ I donā€™t knowā€¦ passive-aggressive / confrontational / dickish?!

20

It appears to be a sort of catch-all rule that punishes actions that donā€™t violate the letter of the rules but the spirit.

One could argue that the vagueness gives mods too much power.

I was an admin for a forum once upon a time and we did add this rule later on to curb people who continually skirted but never quite broke the rules. So long as you trust the mods to act in good faith, then itā€™s a rule that no one should have an issue with.

21

There definitely needs to be a rule like that.

23

11. Accept these limits. Posting or acting in bad faith to demonstrate a disagreement of the rules or moderation is uncool and not a valuable contribution. Posters who make it a point to find the line frequently should consider other places for their posting that accepts content outside of these guidelines. Likewise, posters who feel that the community standard does not meet their personal moral need or comfort level are free to discuss that as it comes up, but also to find a more suitable community that better matches their tolerance levels

  • Keep Rule 11 as is.
  • Fold into intro and remove as rule.
  • Eliminate, we donā€™t need it at all.

0 voters

This poll closes on 11/6 at noon PDT. Simple majority wins on this one.

@anon46587892 please pin

25

How about:

Likewise, posters who feel that the community standard does not meet their personal moral need or comfort level are welcome to openly engage the community to improve our standards, but trying to demonstrate a shortcoming by testing its limits is discouraged and subject to moderation. We value continual improvement, but we also recognize that it is unlikely that all wishes can be accommodated. It is our aim to resolve disputes amicably and in good faith, even if we recognize that sometimes the best resolution is a mutual parting of ways.

1 Like