Request For Comments: The moderation rules

[Blake]

Hello all,

I'd like to request member comments on the moderation rules. To clarify, I'm not asking "whether or not moderation should exist". Assuming the existence, I'm asking what the community thinks would be important things to include in the rule set? Or for that matter, if there's any objection to particular rules in the existing rule set (pasted below).

I adapted the current set of rules from other popular moderated forums. I also created them based on the conversations that seem to be causing the most problems in the previous discussion forums. However, I created them by myself and I'd prefer to incorporate a variety of individuals input on this important topic, not just my own.

Warm regards
Blake

-----------------------------------------------------------
The current moderation rule set:

Inappropriate content:
  * These are considered inappropriate content: Foul language, personal attacks, personal arguments, spam links, sensitive information (personal info, phone numbers, etc.), and direct links to executable files.
  * User names should not imply opposition to any particular religion, race, gender, organization, group, or sexual orientation.
  * Avoid "Flame wars", overgeneralized or overly harsh criticisms, libelous, or obviously false defamatory statements, against organizations or individuals. This includes life extension and cryonics organizations.
  * In other words, please be; Nice, civil, respectful, moderate, and generally decent. Thank you.

Unwieldy content:
  * Avoid extremely large texts in the message body, (more than 5000 to 8000 characters). Large texts can be posted by using a hyperlink or a file attachment.

-----------------------------------------------------------

[Paul Wakfer]

Below see my comments/suggestions on your current moderation rules.

On 16-05-25 02:46 PM, Blake wrote:

-----------------------------------------------------------
The current moderation rule set:

Inappropriate content:
  * These are considered inappropriate content: Foul language, personal attacks, personal arguments, spam links, sensitive information (personal info, phone numbers, etc.),

I see no reason why any person should not be able to publish (by including in any message on CryoLink) any of their own personal information.

and direct links to executable files.
  * User names should not imply opposition to any particular religion, race, gender, organization, group, or sexual orientation.

Except that this should not apply to usernames clearly opposing a group or groups that support/promote the explicit initiation or threat of force against others, unpermitted by those others.

  * Avoid "Flame wars", overgeneralized or overly harsh criticisms, libelous, or obviously false defamatory statements, against organizations or individuals. This includes life extension and cryonics organizations.

The moderator should also ensure that disagreements and criticisms which do fit the above conditions are *not* taken to be flame wars!

  * In other words, please be; Nice, civil, respectful, moderate, and generally decent. Thank you.

Unwieldy content:
  * Avoid extremely large texts in the message body, (more than 5000 to 8000 characters). Large texts can be posted by using a hyperlink or a file attachment.

Re "unwieldy content", I think that you should insist that posters trim footers, sig line repeats and previous message text that is not responded to.

General comment:
There are many phrases used that are highly relative to a person's judgement (as one man's garbage is another man's treasure). I do have an answer to this except to trust the moderator to take an open-minded approach when making decisions on these.

--Paul Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

[kennita]

Sorry if I do this wrong; new to Google Groups... FWIW, I agree w/Paul.  One thing:  Objecting to "foul language" as "inappropriate content" has me flip-flopping between rolling my eyes and wanting to use some.  Give me a break; we're adults here.

[Blake]

Hi Paul and Kennita,

Thank you for the feedback.  I've replied to your statements, and pasted an updated moderation rule set below.

> I see no reason why any person should not be able to publish (by including in any message on CryoLink) any of their own personal information.

Agreed. I'll change the rules to reflect it.

> Except that this should not apply to usernames clearly opposing a group or groups that support/promote the explicit initiation or threat of force against others, unpermitted by those others.

I do agree that there are various groups in the world that need to be opposed. Still, I don't feel comfortable expecting myself or other moderators to make these value judgments regarding "which ones?" while interpreting moderation rules. It's rare that a member's username or email contains these kinds of implications, but when they do it's usually something offensive to some common group. It much easier just to leave a blanket rule against such usernames, if only for ease of interpretation and implementation. Such opinions can always be expressed in other places, such as in discussion list messages.

> The moderator should also ensure that disagreements and criticisms which do fit the above conditions are *not* taken to be flame wars!

Agreed. I've added some distinctions for the difference between personal attacks, and the criticism of scientific ideas, policies, procedures, etc.

> Re "unwieldy content", I think that you should insist that posters trim footers, sig line repeats and previous message text that is not responded to.

Actually I did have something like this separate section called "Guidelines (aka Netiquette)", but I've incorporated it into the main rules with the understanding that moderators have greater discretion in deciding whether or not to moderate "unwieldy content", especially in the case of small messages and small oversights. I'd prefer not be too nitpicky about such things.

> From Kennita: Objecting to "foul language" as "inappropriate content" has me flip-flopping between rolling my eyes and wanting to use some.  we're adults here.

While I understand your meaning, in heated circumstances people sometimes use such language in ways that are more personally attacking than others. This seems like a good item to include.

Thanks for all the feedback so far. I've incorporated the mentioned changes into the latest moderation rule set, which is pasted below.

Warm regards,
Blake

------------------------------------
Inappropriate content:
  * These are considered inappropriate content: Personal attacks, personal arguments, foul language, name calling or derogatory labels, spam links, and direct links to executable files.
  * Do not post sensitive information about other people: Such as personal information, personal arguments, phone numbers or addresses, etc.
  * Regarding contact information: Publishing your own contact information is okay, but please consider it carefully. Contact information cannot be removed from published emails.
  * User names and emails should not imply opposition to any particular religion, race, gender, organization, group, or sexual orientation.
  * Avoid "Flame wars", overgeneralized or overly harsh criticisms, libelous, or obviously false defamatory statements.
  * Consider the target: Organizations and individuals are protected against attacks. Scientific ideas, technologies, policies, and procedures are open to civil criticisms and debate.
  * Moderation rules apply equally to individuals and organizations, as senders or targets of communications. (This includes life extension and cryonics organizations.)

  * In other words, please be; Nice, civil, respectful, moderate, and generally decent. Thank you.

Unwieldy content:
Note: These are also known as "Netiquette". The rules in this section are most often enforced for long messages, but they may not always be enforced for small messages and small oversights. Limiting message size is the part to remember. Moderation of unwieldy content is based on moderator discretion, thread size, and repetition.

  * Avoid extremely large texts in the message body, (more than 5000 to 8000 characters). This includes text from previous messages in the thread.
  * Large texts can be posted by using a hyperlink or a file attachment.
  * When replying to long messages and threads: Please trim the previous message text, except the parts that are responded to.
  * When replying to messages, please add your reply to the top. (Not at the bottom, or "inline".)
  * Avoid "empty" content: Empty messages, test messages, "naked" links, and content that does not seem intended for the group.
  * Please sign messages with some identifier. (Real names are not necessary. A username or a handle is also fine.)
  * Please don't type messages in all capital letters.
------------------------------------

[Michael Harrop]

"While I understand your meaning, in heated circumstances people sometimes use such language in ways that are more personally attacking than others. This seems like a good item to include."

You already have a rule against personal attacks. If that's the main reason for the language filter then it's redundant.

[Blake]

Hello Michael,

> You already have a rule against personal attacks. If that's the main reason for the language filter then it's redundant.

You have a good point, the language rule overlaps in purpose with some of the other moderation rules. I'm not seeing any disadvantage in this redundancy, if it helps clarify the intentions for readers. Still, you've got me thinking about the reasoning behind any foul language rule.

Wikipedia says this about profanity: "Profanity, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is 'an offensive word' or 'offensive language'. It is also called bad language, strong language, coarse language, foul language, bad words, vulgar language, lewd language, swearing, cursing, cussing, or using expletives. This use is a subset of a language's lexicon that is generally considered to be strongly impolite, rude or offensive. It can show a debasement of someone or something, or show intense emotion."

This description of profanity seems accurate enough to me. "Showing intense emotion" is obviously not a problem in itself. "Showing debasement of someone or something" is probably the most common usage, but that is covered by other rules, as you pointed out. Setting aside the more innocuous possibilities within its usage spectrum, profanity is still "generally considered to be strongly impolite, rude or offensive". This holds true regardless of its perceived acceptability for a subset of the population (within certain contexts and purposes). The core purpose of moderation rules is to keep things more civil, and foul language tends to escalate the emotional intensity of an argument. So I'm personally seeing more benefit than disadvantage in mentioning foul language in the moderation rule set.

Warm regards,
Blake

[Lisa DH]

Hello all,

Blake and I were just chatting about the profanity question. I feel kind of borderline about this rule, but I lean towards thinking that it might be more useful to have it than not to have it. A portion of the population may be offended by profanity, and a portion of the population may not be offended. It's good to make the forum as nice as we can for a wide variety of members.  Also, technically there is no rule against minors being members of this group, so we can't actually assume that everyone is legally an adult. (Google allows anyone over the age of 13 to create a Google account.)

Lisa