[Sticky] Code of conduct, behavior and rules of the forum.

Agreed, some pre-defined consequences are a necessary evil. The three strikes setup dev mentioned above seems like a simple and logical place to start. 

As for the thread lock and cooling off period, I agree it is important, but feel like 2-3 days should be more than enough. During that time the pre-defined consequence should have been carried out, and things should have settled some. The thread in question is a rapidly moving topic, and I enjoyed both sharing with and learning from others what is going on worldwide. It was unavoidable some politics would appear, but once it devolved into 75% polarized US politics and I hard to sift through 2-3 pages a day to read a handful of relevant posts it got old... real fast.

@marsrock7

not sure I agree on the thread lock. I personally feel that the thread in question should be deleted as it was perverted into a political propaganda parade of alternate facts lef by moderators of a car board. UM is completely correct this is no place for discussions of political or religious topic. Discussion of the virus is one thing. Discussion of the success or failure of our community responses are ok but denoting reports as fake to support ones singular agenda? No, certainly not without factual back up from vetted sources.

this is either or. You either ban these topics from discussion (my preference) or you make a hole and let people climb in where it becomes your responsibility to avoid it if you do not want to be exposed. There is no middle ground here and there will never be middle ground here. Want to chat about forbidding fruit? Set up a group pm.

As for setting sanctions for rules? Not my job. Anyone want insight or data on the pandemic? PM me some have and regardless of you politics I will tell you the truth of it as I understand it. 

 I have decided that we need to implement the three strikes policy now for the good of the board. It is not something I came up with, its how some other boards do it and I think it is not only fair, its too generous.   We should be able to post as we would like even it is political as long as you don't break the rules. We shouldn't be in the business of modifying peoples opinion but we can certainly stop slander, defamation of character and abrasiveness towards each other alluding to a pattern of obvious  conduct that is inflammatory like taunts that is not in the sprit of the board, that is where bad actors thrive and we shouldn't tolerate it. It's perfectly fine to be rude or challenge ones opinions but its another to disparage them on a personal level.    

    Actions as follows

 First offense:  probationary warning for three months.

 Second offense: 30 days suspension 

 Third offense:  Ban 

  The first warning by a moderator or admin can be given without review. Thread becomes temporary or permanently locked. 

   The second offense should be under review by at least a minimum of two moderators that agree. 

    If a third offense is made then there is an immediate suspension pending review by all four admin/moderators for a permanent ban. If there is disagreement it will be voted on and the suspension will continue indefinitely until all admin/ moderators  are present to weigh in.  

 The reason why I am doing this now is because we did come to a situation where we could not moderate effectively. Rules were broken but we had no other action but to lock the thread so no one was offended. There are going to be those that will not like this action especially if they are the ones undermining the good will of the board and there will be those that will leave thinking the action is unjust towards a member but there needs to be line drawn in the sand if we want to have a board that is civil for the rest of us.  

 One thing that people need to be aware of. Some will want to challenge the board as their way to be disruptive by playing victim games by undermine the authority of the board to gain an audience so they can fracture it, please be aware of the real motivations of  their intentions.  The ones with the keys do not want to moderate bad behavior because we know it will upset people but a lack of moderation in this area is also not fair to the majority that would like to use this board who abide by the rules in good faith. 

Posted by: @dev

 I have decided that we need to implement the three strikes policy now for the good of the board. It is not something I came up with, its how some other boards do it and I think it is not only fair, its too generous.   We should be able to post as we would like even it is political as long as you don't break the rules. We shouldn't be in the business of modifying peoples opinion but we can certainly stop slander, defamation of character and abrasiveness towards each other alluding to a pattern of obvious  conduct that is inflammatory like taunts that is not in the sprit of the board, that is where bad actors thrive and we shouldn't tolerate it. It's perfectly fine to be rude or challenge ones opinions but its another to disparage them on a personal level.    

    Actions as follows

 First offense:  probationary warning for three months.

 Second offense: 30 days suspension 

 Third offense:  Ban 

  The first warning by a moderator or admin can be given without review. Thread becomes temporary or permanently locked. 

   The second offense should be under review by at least a minimum of two moderators that agree. 

    If a third offense is made then there is an immediate suspension pending review by all four admin/moderators for a permanent ban. If there is disagreement it will be voted on and the suspension will continue indefinitely until all admin/ moderators  are present to weigh in.  

 The reason why I am doing this now is because we did come to a situation where we could not moderate effectively. Rules were broken but we had no other action but to lock the thread so no one was offended. There are going to be those that will not like this action especially if they are the ones undermining the good will of the board and there will be those that will leave thinking the action is unjust towards a member but there needs to be line drawn in the sand if we want to have a board that is civil for the rest of us.  

 One thing that people need to be aware of. Some will want to challenge the board as their way to be disruptive by playing victim games by undermine the authority of the board to gain an audience so they can fracture it, please be aware of the real motivations of  their intentions.  The ones with the keys do not want to moderate peoples bad behavior because we know it will upset people but often a lack of moderation in this area is also not fair to the majority that would like to use this board who abide by the rules in good faith. 

 

 

 

Be good to have all moderators admin not participate in non board focused discussions. Conflict of interests indeed exist dev. Best way to moderate effectively is to not be involved in controversial topics. If any moderator wishes to do so they should step down from being a moderator/admin. Recusing is nonsense you still have access to the back room, you still represent the board authority. And if you think about the board should be united around the topic of its construction whereas it will be easily fractured by introductions diverse controversial topics center4d on current events. Your mileage may vary but those who read this know I am correct in this thinking. 

I have been sitting back and watching a lot of this unfold and have kept my mouth shut up to this point, but I would like to voice my opinion and propose a potential solution. 

My intent in creating this site and board(This may differ from LT, so I am only speaking for myself and my motives) was to provide a place for us, as automotive enthusiasts, to discuss our vehicles in a productive manner, productive being the key word here. As time goes on, relationships are formed; Friend or Foe it doesn't matter as we are all adults and can fend for our selves. As these relationships blossom, we need a place to discuss other topics, hence the General subforum. In my generation, I am unpopular with my opinions about free speach, as in I believe in it unequivocally and absolute. I grew up with the saying of Sticks and Stones, and live by that to this day. My words are blunt and rash, but you always know what I am thinking. With that said, I believe there is a time, and a place to filter your words and hold back, within reason. 

My solution - I don't disagree with DEV that there should be something in place, albeit I don't necessarily agree with a permanent ban or censorship at all. I propose the addition of a new subforum that is an anything goes(hold porn, violence, racism, etc.), conversation wise, that is hidden from the public and only accessible to logged in users. I want everyone to have the ability to speak their truth, their mind, and the opinions. I personally don't care if I piss an individual off, so long as it's in the right outlet or forum, however I also do not want to belittle or offend the community as a whole when it is not intended for, nor expected to be read by more than a few very specific individuals. 

I think in the days of Don, SC and T-Bone are a perfect example of what I do not want to have happen again. Same with OldMan and his shenanigans. I think everyone should be able to speak their mind and their opinion, in the correct place, and then after they have said what they want, they can go back to the normal section of the forum to help out the community as a whole.

I believe mods should hold the authority and power to sway a conversation back on topic should it drift in the wrong direction. I also believe they should be able to move conversations, and/or threads into their correct places, I.E. keeping organization in place. I also believe they should be able to censor words, posts, etc that are inappropriate, offensive, etc. only in select circumstances where it effects the community as a whole and can cause a negative shift.

I want this website, forum, and community as a whole to be a welcoming place for all, just as much as a place for us all to speak our mind. What I do not want is for it to be a place that people are afraid to join and engage in conversation; to ask questions and to learn from those of us that have been around for the later part of a decade. For that, we all need to have a mutual respect. We are all entitled to our opinions, to our thoughts feelings and concerns, but we must all agree to have it in the right place in order for this to work as intended, otherwise this forum will go down hill and will come to its own demise.

After reading through much of this thread I would like to add on the following in terms of consequences. I do not like the thought of locking someone, potentially an invaluable resource, out of the forum. I am not opposed to slight, very limited censorship though.

I would like to see three things. First, a warning within a thread, should it drift off topic. I believe it needs to be a canned response of sorts where you verbally warn and bring the thread back on topic, but that is the extend of mods action at that point. Second, you recommend bringing the drifted discussion(in the form of a new thread) to the new forum/subforum that will be dedicated to these off-topic discussions, alternatively moving the whole thread to the new forum/subforum. The final action would be to lock the thread, but this is only if the parties continue the off topic discussion. 

I believe a permanent ban should only be held for those that continually spam the forum, or regularly post forbidden content such as porn, racist comments, purposefully agitate, provoke, etc. 

Do we really need to have disrupting aggravating, insulting members that provide no productive content just to say we are an open minded  forum.

cut out the cancer before it does cause a fracture in the forum.

 I also would like a free speech board as well and I do not necessarily disagree but there comes a point where there will be fighting words. If there were to be an additional subform for anything goes where slander and defamation and threats were to thrive where does it end and if it continues I strongly believe it will fracture the board beyond repair. I personally do not want read it or participate in it but I certainly cannot moderate for it but im ok if others are in favor of it and want it. All of that hate and ugliness will find its way onto the main part of the forum and that is what I worry about. What we have now is not censoring opinion, disagreeing  or being rude. We are stoping the personal attacks. Free speech is fine but when you are in a clubhouse we should have some rules of conduct. 

Posted by: @dev

 I also would like a free speech board as well and I do not necessarily disagree but there comes a point where there will be fighting words. If there were to be an additional subform for anything goes where slander and defamation and threats were to thrive where does it end and if it continues I strongly believe it will fracture the board beyond repair. I personally do not want read it or participate in it but I certainly cannot moderate for it but im ok if others are in favor of it and want it. All of that hate and ugliness will find its way onto the main part of the forum and that is what I worry about. What we have now is not censoring opinion, disagreeing  or being rude. We are stoping the personal attacks. Free speech is fine but when you are in a clubhouse we should have some rules of conduct. 

 

I'll address both of your comments here. 

First, I would classify someone that does not contribute to the forum in a positive way, and in term only adds regular negativity, as Spam and would threaten and subsequently ban said user. However, for regular, actively participating users who add something to the forum, I would be extremely reluctant to event threaten a ban, so long as their posts are in the correct area and are not overstepping the outlined set of rules.

I Just made the subforum and want to be clear with my intentions. In an effort to clean up the board, I would like to see any conversation that could be considered offensive to happen only in that subforum. If a user does not like it, then they should steer clear. As I stated in my previous response, should a thread drift in any way, it should be brought back on topic and the conversation which caused the drift either ends, or moves to it's respective subforum in either General, or General - open conversation(or whatever the name of it ends up as). If the thread drift continues, then the thread is closed. I believe censorship should only occur in the instances you outlined above, where fighting words ensue, ie. slander, defamation, and threats to ones person or belongings. 

I'm trying to find a middle ground that is favorable to all where opinions can be voiced and conversation can be had, while still protecting the forum and the vast majority of its users. The subforum is only accessible to registered users who are logged in, and the threads within it are only seen when you purposefully access it. Conversations that fit the description should be moved here, if not already in place.

Posted by: @pattielipp

Posted by: @dev

 I also would like a free speech board as well and I do not necessarily disagree but there comes a point where there will be fighting words. If there were to be an additional subform for anything goes where slander and defamation and threats were to thrive where does it end and if it continues I strongly believe it will fracture the board beyond repair. I personally do not want read it or participate in it but I certainly cannot moderate for it but im ok if others are in favor of it and want it. All of that hate and ugliness will find its way onto the main part of the forum and that is what I worry about. What we have now is not censoring opinion, disagreeing  or being rude. We are stoping the personal attacks. Free speech is fine but when you are in a clubhouse we should have some rules of conduct. 

 

I'll address both of your comments here. 

First, I would classify someone that does not contribute to the forum in a positive way, and in term only adds regular negativity, as Spam and would threaten and subsequently ban said user. However, for regular, actively participating users who add something to the forum, I would be extremely reluctant to event threaten a ban, so long as their posts are in the correct area and are not overstepping the outlined set of rules.

I Just made the subforum and want to be clear with my intentions. In an effort to clean up the board, I would like to see any conversation that could be considered offensive to happen only in that subforum. If a user does not like it, then they should steer clear. As I stated in my previous response, should a thread drift in any way, it should be brought back on topic and the conversation which caused the drift either ends, or moves to it's respective subforum in either General, or General - open conversation(or whatever the name of it ends up as). If the thread drift continues, then the thread is closed. I believe censorship should only occur in the instances you outlined above, where fighting words ensue, ie. slander, defamation, and threats to ones person or belongings. 

I'm trying to find a middle ground that is favorable to all where opinions can be voiced and conversation can be had, while still protecting the forum and the vast majority of its users. The subforum is only accessible to registered users who are logged in, and the threads within it are only seen when you purposefully access it. Conversations that fit the description should be moved here, if not already in place.

Patrick, 

I think we have a bit of a misunderstanding. Im in complete agreement with not threatening a ban because someone has a contribution that is not positive. That never happened on the main board. We allowed all of it until it crossed a line of a personal attack. As to the banning there was never a threat to ban. The banning would only happen when all other options have been exhausted with those that broke the rules consistently after suspension which is agreed upon by all admin/moderators.  

 In this new subform how does it differ from the main forum. What I mean by that is how do we moderate the main form now. I certainly don't want to censor someones un positive opinion. 

 It also raises new questions like what happens when someone consistently breaks the rules of the forum. Im in favor on not threatening  a ban but sanctioning them first with a warning but eventually if this behavior persists we are left with very little choice. 

I think the saying Lost in translation may be at play with a hit of different words, same meaning. This may help with others understanding the situation a bit more. I think I may be proposing a more clear cut response to Certain antics that are appropriate in one area while they're not in another.

I am working at the same time of reading and writing all of this, so please forgive if i'm jumping around. 

I think, more than anything else, the expectations need to be laid out in an easier to understand way. I think throwing around the words like Censorship and Banning can lead people to jump to unnecessary conclusions, myself included, until I fully read and understood what yourself and others were/are saying. With all of that said, this forum is still in its infancy and we are still figuring things out and learning lessons as we go. We are our own governing body and we hope to function out of mutual respect, so the hierarchy is being figured out along with the do's, don'ts, and responsibilities of each included party.

Posted by: @pattielipp

I think the saying Lost in translation may be at play with a hit of different words, same meaning. This may help with others understanding the situation a bit more. I think I may be proposing a more clear cut response to Certain antics that are appropriate in one area while they're not in another.

I am working at the same time of reading and writing all of this, so please forgive if i'm jumping around. 

I think, more than anything else, the expectations need to be laid out in an easier to understand way. I think throwing around the words like Censorship and Banning can lead people to jump to unnecessary conclusions, myself included, until I fully read and understood what yourself and others were/are saying. With all of that said, this forum is still in its infancy and we are still figuring things out and learning lessons as we go. We are our own governing body and we hope to function out of mutual respect, so the hierarchy is being figured out along with the do's, don'ts, and responsibilities of each included party.

  I agree. We are both getting ahead of ourselves but sailing in the same direction with the right intentions.  I agree that we shouldn't use the words censoring, I think saying breaking the rules would be better and sanctioning as a forum of response. I do not think we need to be the police of someones unpopular opinion but when it comes to personal attacks there needs to be consequences. If you read the three strikes and your out post I laid out an appropriate way to make it fair that anyone should understand that they are given chances. A person who consistently breaks the rules has no respect of following some basic rules and probably do not take the forum and its members seriously as they have been given the generosity of our patience in the hopes they might correct their behavior (personal attacks) to other members. At that point in time something has to be done for the sake of other members otherwise they will leave.  

     I have received a number of complaints when this was going on. Some wanted more extreme version of sanctions but I thought this would be a good middle ground of consequences. 

 First a warning and probation. 

 If that doesn't work a temporary suspension, and the very last and most regrettable action is a ban. 

The admins and moderators have worked out a productive way forward after discussions. I have amended the rules to reflect a few additions.   Physical threats of violence is now a new rule that results in an immediate ban. Other changes include consequences for breaking the rules. There will be some other changes as well regarding the new subform that LT or Patrick will discuss. 

 I encourage everyone to look over the amended rules. Thanks

Hello everyone,

As the board grows, we are working to keep it both a welcoming place for new people and meet most needs of the community.  To that end, we are adding a new subforum under General Discussions called "General - Open conversation".  This subforum will not be moderated unless someone reports an issue to a moderator or administrator.  It is in this subforum where any Political discussions will go as those will always devolve into personal attacks.  And unless the personal attack becomes a thread of violence, then they can happen in that subforum.  We will be adding a sticky post to the top of that subforum explaining that the subforum is not moderated and if anyone feels they are being threatened to notify a moderator or administrator.  This new subforum is not visible unless you are a member.  So its content should not prevent some people from joining.

We will be doing some general cleanup over the next few days and move any existing topics that meet the criteria for the Open conversation subforum into that subforum.

If a moderator notices posts that belong in this newly created subforum, but are posted elsewhere, they will move the post or topic to it's rightful location and may also inform the author for why it was moved via PM.

Hopefully, this new subforum will keep the board fun and enjoyable for all of its members.

EDIT:
After re-reading this post, it occurred to me that I may have mis-spoke about the topics.  The text above implies that ALL political topics start out life in the new subforum.  However, I think that the person that creates the topic will likely know if it will end up being controversial or one that will result in attacks.  So, it should be up to the Original Poster to determine if his/her topic is likely to remain civil (even political threads) and if they think it will not deteriorate, then they can create that topic in the General Discussion forum.  I hope that is more clear.  If it turns out that no political threads can remain civil, then this rule may change in the future.  That will be determined by the community.

Thanks.

My opinion:

This is WAY too much talking about what can or cannot be said, who can say it, where it can be said, etc.  My understanding was that this forum was to grow organically, and yet here we are drowning it in chemical fertilizer.

I'll be having my "off topic" conversations elsewhere, because this community in general has shown itself to be too sensitive to handle any real discussion in that vein.  And that's just fine.

Carry on as you wish, my input here will be car-related or antidotal to any particular subject already in play.  I'll not say more on the subject.