I'll try to offer some clarification, at least as I see it.Boddynock wrote:[...] On a more serious note, can we request some clarification on these forum rules, particularly #1, 2, and 5 (listed below for convenience).
1. Stay on topic. Please keep your posts relevant and do not make off-topic posts. If a subject is brought up in a thread which you believe merits a discussion, start a new topic in an appropriate forums section instead of derailing a current one.
Who is the arbiter of what is considered "on topic"? I see this often, particularly in debates over this or that, when someone brings up support that could (and has in the past) been considered to be off topic, despite the attempt to use that related information to support something being discussed, I have seen (albeit not recently) people get shut down and that line of discussion moved to another thread, resulting in anyone wanting to have all the applicable information having to look in more than one place.
2. No flaming. Personal attacks, disrespectful, derogatory, threatening, insulting or negative comments will not be tolerated. This encompasses "Trolling" which are posts that intend to do any of the above or disrupt the discussion. [Emphasis added]
I have always assumed this meant no negative comments directed at a particular person, but that doesn't seem to be the interpretation of all of the staff. Are we not allowed to express a negative opinion at all, even about things and not people? (And once again, I have seen people's post edited and removed, including mine, for holding a negative opinion about a policy, rule, or some other abstract, and not a person, so please don't imply this doesn't happen.)
5. Do not swear or use profanity. Some leeway is allowed for IC posts, within reason. Modern day racial/social/political slurs have no place in IC or OOC posts. Images that include profanity must be edited to exclude the profanity, or they will be deleted.
"Some leeway?" What does that mean, and once again who decides how much is too much? Can we define "within reason" or otherwise clarify, in black and white, what the intent of this rule is? It is a little too ambiguous as written, but clarifying the intent somehow might go a long way to defining what sort of leeway is "within reason."
If a thread's derailed, attempts will be made to convince the derailing parties to get back on track or start a new thread dedicated to their new subject. This prevents an ongoing conversation from losing its direction.Boddynock wrote:1. Stay on topic. [...]
For example, I've moved this subject to a new thread in the appropriate forum because a discussion about the forum rules would distract from our celebrating Akroma and Aspect of Sorrow in the thread where we're supposed to be thanking them and welcoming them into their new roles.
The forum moderators are the arbiters of the forum's rules.
Typically it translates to "don't be mean to each other."Boddynock wrote:2. No flaming. Personal attacks, disrespectful, derogatory, threatening, insulting or negative comments will not be tolerated. This encompasses "Trolling" which are posts that intend to do any of the above or disrupt the discussion. [Emphasis added]
It's really just intended to discourage people from being cruel or vindictive. We share this space, and we all have to do our best to try and get along with each other while we're here. That being said, most of those of us on staff do value constructive criticism, and I personally, generally, accept that even out-and-out negativity is often informative.
The problem is that sometimes that negativity is couched in language that seems to be (or simply is) a direct attack against an individual or a small group of individuals, or makes an example out of another individual (usually in a derogatory or embarrassing way) in an effort to bolster a point or rebuke an opponent.
Passive-aggressive or veiled attacks on another person, even when that person is not explicitly named, do qualify as flaming under this rule, because those "in the know" are expected to understand who is being attacked.
It's usually pretty cut and dry, but there is wiggle room in interpretation with this one. I prefer it that way, because most of us aren't lawyers, and the more complicated and elaborate the rules become the less likely they are to be followed.
In an effort to help neutralize some of the perceived (and real) bias that comes from "wiggle room," the DMs have agreed to cede day-to-day forum moderation to the forum moderators. If you feel you've been unfairly censured, let me know, though. I can review the moderator logs and will keep track of moderators who are being a little too heavy-handed.
This rule was made when I wasn't personally paying much attention, so I can't speak directly to the intent -- but I expect that it was originally made to prevent the use of slurs or hate speech, as well as to moderate profane language (so that nobody gets in too much trouble if they're caught surfing the forums at school or at work!)Boddynock wrote:5. Do not swear or use profanity. [...]
The "leeway" segment of the rule seems to be making room to accept that some in character situations may be emotionally charged enough to warrant an in character curse, where saying something like "oh my goodness!" would rob the scene of its gravitas. Of course, there are actual in character curse words and expressions that one can fall back upon as well, but not everybody is prepared to reference that lore every time they want their character to seem angry or shocked at something.
All in all, no rule is perfect, nor are those who enforce the rules. Mistakes will occasionally be made, and I don't think anyone in a decision-making position goes more than a few days without making one or two controversial calls. We implicitly accept that sometimes we won't agree with the calls when we allow volunteers from various backgrounds to arbitrate our writing and gaming experience, as we inherently do whenever we sign up to play on any NWN2 server with a DM or developer presence.
