Forum Guidelines have been updated

[Deddly]

Hello everyone!

We would like to let you know that the Forum Guidelines have been updated and reorganised. Some guidelines have been added, some have been removed, and some have been edited to make them clearer or easier to read. We hope that these new guidelines will make it easier for regular users to understand what is appropriate conduct for our community and for moderators to moderate in moderation.

Some of the most significant changes include:

• a guideline (2.2h) involving consipiracy theories etc
• a removal of the rule forbidding repeated update requests from modders. This rule did not have the result we had hoped for, but Mod creators are encouraged to request people to refrain from asking about updates in the OP if they don't like it, and to keep the OP up to date with current information about the mod. Posts can obviously still be reported as before if things get out of hand.
• Sections 1 and 3 have been rewritten for clarity and to explain what to do if you see rules being broken.

The whole moderation team felt this was important and has been working for a quite a while to discuss and improve these guidelines, so please take a few moments to read them. An added bonus is that they are slightly shorter!

Keep having fun.

[Frybert]

A lot of changes here. Very important to read up on. 

[adsii1970]

21 hours ago, Deddly said:

Some of the most significant changes include:

• a guideline (2.2h) involving consipiracy theories etc

[edited by adsii1970 to remove content I'm not commenting on]

I'm not trying to create an issue, but am asking for clarification on this. What is the difference between someone who insists its a conspiracy and a rules violation?

The rule, as currently written, reads:

h. Content with no proof of concept or factual basis (e.g. "free energy" machines), conspiratorial and lacking evidence (e.g. flat Earth, Moon hoax), denial of historic events (e.g. Holocaust);

An example would be the most recent thread I was a part of...

There was one person who refused to believe mankind had ever left Earth orbit (not naming him, but you can easily find who this person is if you read the thread). Now as a so called "intellectual," I always welcome a good and honest debate with the idea that the person I am disagreeing with also uses facts. In fact, it's how we learn of viewpoints that are outside our own. I do not want any more warnings or violations - as I am almost on my one year anniversary of my last 2.2 violation . But with that said... can you do a little explaining on this rule that appears to be a bit vague?

Edited February 28, 2017 by adsii1970

[sal_vager]

Hi @adsii1970, munlander1 asked a question, but is not advocating Moon landing denialism, so he avoids a ban on this occasion.

Edit:

The full text of that rule:

Quote

Content with no proof of concept or factual basis (e.g. "free energy" machines), conspiratorial and lacking evidence (e.g. flat Earth, Moon hoax), denial of historic events (e.g. Holocaust);

"a guideline (2.2h) involving conspiracy theories etc" does not tell the full story.

[adsii1970]

Not talking about the initial question. But there is a poster/participant in it that changes the inquiry to a rant about it all being a hoax...

Edited February 28, 2017 by adsii1970

[sal_vager]

1 minute ago, adsii1970 said:

Not talking about the initial question. But there is a poster/participant in it that changes the inquiry to a rant about it all being a hoax...

Well then if he continues please report any new posts from him and the moderation team will investigate

[adsii1970]

Not meaning to make you or the moderators mad... But what I'm asking is what's the violation line? Is there a point where a legitimate discussion of a conspiracy theory becomes a violation of forum rules?

[sal_vager]

Just now, adsii1970 said:

Not meaning to make you or the moderators mad... But what I'm asking is what's the violation line? Is there a point where a legitimate discussion of a conspiracy theory becomes a violation of forum rules?

Advocation, with no proof, 'proof' that is debunked or known to be invalid is not good enough, if you want to make such claims put your money where your mouth is and prove it, demanding others "go look it up" is not acceptable.

If such a discussion can be had within the rule 2.2D and with evidence that's actually meaningful, then we'll see what happens.

[adsii1970]

Thanks... That's what I wanted!

[paulprogart]

Why are they called "Forum Guidelines" when they clearly are rules and even refer to themselves as such?

 

[sal_vager]

Though denial of the Holocaust and similar world events will result in swift boot.

Just now, paulprogart said:

Why are they called "Forum Guidelines" when they clearly are rules and even refer to themselves as such?

 

Because the IPS4 software calls them guidelines.

[paulprogart]

5 minutes ago, sal_vager said:

Because the IPS4 software calls them guidelines.

Wow.

[cratercracker]

22 hours ago, Deddly said:

a guideline (2.2h) involving consipiracy theories etc

But what if person made a bad(sarcastic) joke about flat earth,hoax moon and other fairy tails? Would it count as a violation of forum guidelines? Even if it was ment to be joke and everybody know about it?

[sal_vager]

26 minutes ago, cratercracker said:

But what if person made a bad(sarcastic) joke about flat earth,hoax moon and other fairy tails? Would it count as a violation of forum guidelines? Even if it was ment to be joke and everybody know about it?

Well I would hope the moderators have enough common sense to know the difference (sets @Frybert on @cratercracker's post history)

[AG5BPilot]

Personally, I think the conspiracy theory rule has the potential to cause the moderators a lot of grief.

I run a website which amongst other things has some pretty lively forums.  I don't think I'd ever try to actually have a written rule forbidding conspiracy theories.  Don't get me wrong:  I'm 100% for keeping conspiracy theories off both my forums and yours.  The problem is that LOTS of people actually believe in this stuff.  And they really, really believe it's true, too.  You're not going to be able to get people to avoid saying the sky is blue when they know it's blue.  You also won't get people to stop saying the sky is green when they know it's green, because they think everyone who believes it's blue is absolutely crazy.  Just like we think they are nuts.  I know a few people in real life (like my next door neighbors), who believe in some of this stuff.  They're very nice people.  Very interesting.  Great neighbors.  But they have some decidedly oddball beliefs and they are true believers.  They're not Internet trolls.  They don't say these things to get a rise out of people.  They truly believe.  We quickly learn simply not to talk to them about that stuff.  The same applies online.  If you shut down a conversation because it's a "conspiracy theory".  You are essentially telling someone that they're crazy and/or they're not smart enough to distinguish fact from fiction.  There's no way that's not going to result in hurt feelings, anger, and lots of unpleasantness.  Also, behind the one person posting about the conspiracy theory will be 100 more believers reading the thread who haven't said anything, and you're going to offend tham as well.  On the other hand, calling it "off-topic" has the same effect of shutting down the conversation without all the drama.  This approach has worked well for me in the past.

Anyway, good luck with the new rules.  I think they're really good.  They make me want to rewrite my forum's rules.

[sal_vager]

Well we did used to have a rule forbidding conspiracies, then it was reworded but became so indistinct it was more confusing then helpful.

So now it's back, and sure people do believe this stuff, but if they are prepared to think and are civil then no harm done, those that aren't, well that's why we have bans.

A pseudo science subforum is an idea.

[Dman979]

1 hour ago, sal_vager said:

A pseudo science subforum is an idea.

Oh, I could have a lot of fun with this! But obviously, just like the Science and Spaceflight one, it could very easily get to politics.

[KSK]

I'm a bit concerned by the first part of rule 2.2h:

"Content with no proof of concept or factual basis (e.g. "free energy" machines)"

If strictly enforced, that rule would kill off a lot of the threads on the Science and Spaceflight subforum, a great many which tend to be science fiction threads or (relatively) well mannered discussions about scientific misconceptions. "Content with no proof of concept or factual basis" is also an oddly broad exclusion considering that this is a forum dedicated to a fictional space program based set in a physically implausible universe.

Now, I trust the moderators' discretion and I don't believe this is likely to be a problem in practice, but I'm still not keen on loosely worded guidelines. A good rule of thumb when drafting contracts (or forum guidelines  ) - if you don't need it, don't include it!

 

[sal_vager]

I felt an example was necessary, not least of which because of the M-drive which went on far longer than it should, but also the posts you don't see because the moderation team removes them while they are still in the queue.

Perpetual motion seems to be tailing off, but it still pops up.

[Whirligig Girl]

3 hours ago, sal_vager said:

Quote

Content with no proof of concept or factual basis (e.g. "free energy" machines), conspiratorial and lacking evidence (e.g. flat Earth, Moon hoax), denial of historic events (e.g. Holocaust);

 

Question: is obvious joking about conspiracy theories alright? Especially if given a "/s" or a "" ?

[sal_vager]

Just now, GregroxMun said:

Question: is obvious joking about conspiracy theories alright? Especially if given a "/s" or a "" ?

As long as you don't break 2.2D while doing so

[Waxing_Kibbous]

Just gonna throw this out there, but this is probably the best forum I've frequented in terms of moderation and general all-around sanity. Keep up the great work team!

[sarbian]

On 27/02/2017 at 10:31 PM, Deddly said:

and to keep the OP up to date with current information about the mod

So the burden of handling spammer is now on the modder but without the tools ?

[Elthy]

On 27.2.2017 at 10:31 PM, Deddly said:

a removal of the rule forbidding repeated update requests from modders. This rule did not have the result we had hoped for

What exactly did happen? Why is this rule not enforced anymore? It did sound good in theory...

Quote

Content with no proof of concept or factual basis (e.g. "free energy" machines), conspiratorial and lacking evidence (e.g. flat Earth, Moon hoax), denial of historic events (e.g. Holocaust);

Finaly! Does creationism fall under that definition, too (i would consider it "denial of historic events"?

[Deddly]

@Elthy Discussion of Creationism would come under 2.2b "Political, ideological or religious posts unrelated to Spaceflight, or of a nature deemed likely to result in behavior banned under rule 2.2D "

5 hours ago, sarbian said:

So the burden of handling spammer is now on the modder but without the tools ?

 

5 hours ago, Elthy said:

What exactly did happen? Why is this rule not enforced anymore? It did sound good in theory...

People were getting punished because of being fans of a mod. Not all modders dislike people asking about updates, in fact, some love to be reassured that people are looking forward to seeing the results of their hard work. Rude requests and problem posts like repeatedly poking a modder (or, presumably, any content provider) for updates can be reported as usual and might be dealt with as harrassment, depending on the extent and apparent intent. If your thread gets cluttered up with people asking for updates, we can also remove some to keep it tidy for you, just add your request in a report or PM and we can look into it. It's usually OK for someone to kindly point out in the thread that the OP asks for no update requests.

EDIT: Another problem with that rule was that we kept getting posts reported that were not breaking any rules because it was misunderstood so much.