Code of Conduct

[Craiglxviii]

Ok. We have had some heated debate recently, some direct warnings.

Those warnings have been heeded by some and ignored by others. Things have now gone beyond my warnings apparently.

Accordingly, I’ll be drafting up a new code of conduct, nothing controversial, but one which the Moderators will enforce.

[Lordroel]

Ok. We have had some heated debate recently, some direct warnings.

Those warnings have been heeded by some and ignored by others. Things have now gone beyond my warnings apparently.

Accordingly, I’ll be drafting up a new code of conduct, nothing controversial, but one which the Moderators will enforce.

Borrowing the first rule of a other place, 1 rule to rule them all:

Provide a civil environment for talking about what is written by members, so be civil, that does not mean you have to be "nice" or "polite" which is different from being civil, otherwise do not insult other members, flame them, treat them with contempt, or treat them in any other offensive way as that is total not civil.

[Craiglxviii]

Ok. We have had some heated debate recently, some direct warnings.

Those warnings have been heeded by some and ignored by others. Things have now gone beyond my warnings apparently.

Accordingly, I’ll be drafting up a new code of conduct, nothing controversial, but one which the Moderators will enforce.

Borrowing the first rule of a other place, 1 rule to rule them all:

Provide a civil environment for talking about what is written by members, so be civil, that does not mean you have to be "nice" or "polite" which is different from being civil, otherwise do not insult other members, flame them, treat them with contempt, or treat them in any other offensive way as that is total not civil.

Thanks. Please keep it coming as I have little desire to reinvent the wheel!

[Lordroel]

Okay, this might be a big one.

Respect somebody view on religion and politics but do it in a respectful manner, that means not accusing somebody of being a liar, a racist, an antisemite, and so on simply because the person has a different view on life, politics or religion.

[Pdf27]

As a rule of thumb, language you would not use to your parents/children (delete as appropriate) is going to bring the standards down here and turn a discussion into a fight.

[Simon Darkshade]

1.) I'd add that civil conduct would also include not wishing or expressing a desire for another member to experience harm or misfortune as a result of their opinions or view; not threatening real world harm upon the same (really a given and can be merged); and avoiding profanity or derogatory language towards another member. Those should be fairly illustrative of civility.

2.) I wouldn't necessarily advocate a direct ruling forbidding explicit language, as we are all adults here and there might well be some circumstances where it is warranted, but simply avoid using it towards other members.

3.) Perhaps consider some sort of guideline on not advocating genocide or specifically mass killing of civilians, with a distinction being drawn between civilians and combatants of groups such terrorist organisations, or military forces of nations involved in wars. There shouldn't be any sense of a duty to like, support or protect people from other countries, but calling for the mass death of Iranians, Chinese, Arabs, Palestinians, Russians, Europeans or whoever else is something that could be avoided with some sort of appropriate guideline or ruling. It would possibly act to avoid discussions being dragged down to rather murky waters.

4.) There shouldn't be any rule against hyperbole, rhetorical flourishes or going over the top on issues of politics, war or otherwise, nor any sense that blokes need to not express their opinions in as much colour and verve as they see fit. Above all else, the ball should be played, rather than the man. It is possible to vehmently disagree and excoriate someone's opinion without sinking the slipper into them as a man, insofar as posters are concerned; I don't think it necessary to extend this to non-members, historical figures or the like.

5.) I don't think that we should necessarily bar people from expressing unpopular opinions in favour of controversial steps, such as the proposed annexation of Greenland (which I mention for illustrative purposes without casting aspersions of judgment), but robust and vehement disagreement could be expected in response from other quarters. Were someone to join and for some reason vehemently support Russia's (completely spurious in my view) claims on Ukraine, then they should have the nominal right to do so, but could expect fairly short shrift in response; however, this would need to be balanced against other prevailing duties and avoiding discredited conspiracy theories.

This is a case of trying to square the circle a bit and provide for maximal free speech with maximal common sense and maximal reasonableness.

6.) No bias for or against long term or short term members would be fairly uncontroversial.

7.) If red lines are to be set, which may include the examples discussed in 5 above, then they need to be made clear and enforced.

8.) Given the experience of 2016, 2020 and to some extent 2024, when US Presidential elections come around and high passions are aroused, perhaps consider sticking reminders.

It is inevitable that we will disagree with one another at various points, not just in election years, but if we can do it like gentlemen (as I don't believe we have any ladies present), then the board can survive as a community and hopefully prosper. Opinions are like servants - everyone has them, but parading them around at dinner can be a bit naff.

[Craiglxviii]

Thanks guys. All good suggestions. I’ll get something drafted in the week.

[kdahm]

Although there may be a few issues with their politics, Sufficient Velocity has a pretty decent set of rules.

https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/t ... ity.40100/

{Rules quoted, the Fine Print and some interpretation are at the link}

Da Rulz
Rule 0: The Mission Comes First

The Rules are not a suicide pact; we are building a community, not Kafka's Online Parlour. Something can comply with the rules as written and still be unacceptable; and something may be against the rules but allowable anyway.

If you demonstrate a consistent unwillingness or inability to participate on SV in good faith, you may be removed, entirely aside from violations of the rules.

Rule 1: Follow the Terms of Service

The Terms of Service are the legal agreement which allows you to use Sufficient Velocity. Failing to abide by those terms, or indicating you will not intend to abide by them, is grounds for immediate removal from Sufficient Velocity.

The ToS supersedes everything else on Sufficient Velocity. None of the staff can give you an 'exception' from those rules, they cannot interpret them on behalf of Sufficient Velocity, and they will not give you advice on how to follow them.
The ToS prohibits obscenity, child pornography, threats of violence, hate speech, harassment, spamming, and other criminal (or possibly criminal) activity.
The ToS also prohibits you from using technical measures that circumvent any system on SV, use SV in a way it was not intended to be used, or access it in any way that might be abusive.
By posting something on SV, you're telling us that you have the right to post that thing on the internet, and you give us the right to display it and use it for SV-related purposes.
By registering on SV, you give up any right to sue us for anything that might happen on, or as a result of, SV, and specifically, you agree to be subject to the disciplinary system of SV.

Rule 2: Don't Be Hateful

We want to build a welcoming community. You can't post anything that is hateful or advocates harassment or violence, even against fictional or historical people. Be mindful in everything that you post.

Be understanding of other viewpoints and perspectives.
Be considerate of how your opinions and statements can be interpreted by others.
Don't use slurs.
Don't talk about how great it would be if someone was raped, tortured, maimed, etc.

Rule 3: Be Civil

Be courteous and decorous to everyone you deal with. It is possible to disagree, even vehemently, with people (both on and off the site) in a constructive fashion.

Respect the privacy of others. Don't take information obtained from private conversations or restricted threads and post it publicly without permission.
Respect the participation of others. Attack arguments, not people. Don't post personal attacks or insults, or join a thread for the purposes of attacking someone else.
Respect the site itself. Don't threaten to report someone or ignore them. If you are going to use those features, let their use speak for itself.

Rule 4: Don't Be Disruptive

Be constructive in a way that enhances the experience of everyone you encounter. Don't act in a way that would disrupt discussions on Sufficient Velocity.

Respect the experience. Don't post unwanted spoilers, off-topic materials, lots of memes or images, or complex or unpleasant formatting.
For stories or quests, it is not a spoiler to discuss generally available information about a setting or characters
Respect the arguments. In discussion, we expect you to be honest, clear, concise, and willing to engage with others.
Respect the nature of discussion. The more controversial an opinion, the more likely it is to spin the discussion out of control: be mindful with controversial opinions and ensure that they maintain an appropriate tone.
Respect other posters. Don't post with the intention of specifically getting a rise out of someone, don't mock or taunt others in your signature or with your avatar, and so on.

Rule 5: Don't Make it Harder For Us to Do Our Jobs

Our staff - from moderators to administrators - are all volunteers. Don't do anything that makes what they do more difficult or that causes trouble for Sufficient Velocity that we then need to invest time and effort into cleaning up.

Don't create multiple accounts without staff permission.
Don't encourage other users to break the rules.
Don't argue with the staff about the rules, or a staff decision, in a thread;
Don't file reports in bad faith;
Don't use Sufficient Velocity as a launchpad for something that might be an issue elsewhere.
Don't mark Sufficient Velocity emails as spam

Rule 6: Acceptable Content on SV

Sufficient Velocity allows content which contain elements (such as sex scenes, drug use, and violence) which may be uncomfortable for some readers, as long as that content is handled maturely. We do not allow content which is pornographic, sexually or violently exploitative, or which exploits the participation of minors.

Content on Sufficient Velocity may be aimed at mature readers and they may contain mature elements, but they cannot be pornographic or exploitative.
Posting high-impact content is a privilege, not a right. If you can't handle it maturely, don't handle it at all.
Handling content maturely is not fetishizing or glorifying violence, hatred, or abuse.
Handling content maturely means including high-impact elements harmoniously and appropriately within a greater context.
Handling content maturely means making it clear what you're posting in advance - by tagging it - so that people who aren't interested don't have to read or see it.
Content may depict minors, either incidentally or primarily, but where works depict minors, they must do so in a way that is situationally appropriate and sensitive to the presented ages of the individuals involved.
Content which depicts minors in situations that are sexual or violent - and which may violate local laws against child exploitation content - may violate Rule 1.

Of course, they have tens of thousands of users and thousands of daily posts. YMMV. There's also a lot in how they enforce the rules, which makes it more difficult for anyone of the Right of Centerline. But it's a good starting point.

[Lordroel]

Although there may be a few issues with their politics, Sufficient Velocity has a pretty decent set of rules.

SV also has Lawyers to defend you if you break the rules, do not think that is needed here.

[kdahm]

Although there may be a few issues with their politics, Sufficient Velocity has a pretty decent set of rules.

SV also has Lawyers to defend you if you break the rules, do not think that is needed here.

Technically speaking, they have Advocates and not Lawyers. The Bar Associations have the term Lawyer locked up, and they have more lawyers than anything else.

SV is large enough to need the trappings of a justice system to avoid being seen as arbitrary and capricious. We're small enough that the site owner has personal knowledge of everyone posting routinely. The rules may turn out to be similar, but the processes don't need to be.

[James1978]

My two cents . . .

Create a MODERATOR account. If warnings or discipline need to be meted out, the approved Mods can log into that account and do it from there. Use red font like Jotun did to grab attention. If we do that, maybe we can let people block whomever they want, but we will all see communications from MODERATOR.

Along with that, maybe we need to Name & Shame egregious conduct right here in Administration And Personnel. MODERATOR could announce things like severe warnings, suspensions and bans so they are seen by all, and not buried in a discussion 80% may never read. And at least tell us why a member was suspended or banned. Under Stuart, a few frequent posters got booted overnight, and the board at large were never told why.

############################################################
Having said that, an observation.

There have been some excuses made for some recent behavior, much of it based on "how thing have always been" or "used to be" with regards to certain members.
Respectfully, I call Bullshit.

Let's be clear what "how thing have always been" or "used to be" really means. It means when Stuart was running things and the latitude he gave certain members, and denied to others.
Stuart had been gone for almost four and a half years now - 10 December 2020.

Our little community as been at this current home since November 2022. And before that, an interim home that lasted a couple years if memory serves.

I would submit that our community has been under new management for a sufficient length of time, that we really should not be excusing current behavior on the basis of how Stuart enforced the rules in the past. We may carry on the same name, and have fond memories of Stuart - but this isn't his board anymore. This is a new place that should have its own rules that are fairly enforced against all transgressors. So Mods, lay down the damn law and let's get on with it.

[Craiglxviii]

My two cents . . .

Create a MODERATOR account. If warnings or discipline need to be meted out, the approved Mods can log into that account and do it from there. Use red font like Jotun did to grab attention. If we do that, maybe we can let people block whomever they want, but we will all see communications from MODERATOR.

Along with that, maybe we need to Name & Shame egregious conduct right here in Administration And Personnel. MODERATOR could announce things like severe warnings, suspensions and bans so they are seen by all, and not buried in a discussion 80% may never read. And at least tell us why a member was suspended or banned. Under Stuart, a few frequent posters got booted overnight, and the board at large were never told why.

############################################################
Having said that, an observation.

There have been some excuses made for some recent behavior, much of it based on "how thing have always been" or "used to be" with regards to certain members.
Respectfully, I call Bullshit.

Let's be clear what "how thing have always been" or "used to be" really means. It means when Stuart was running things and the latitude he gave certain members, and denied to others.
Stuart had been gone for almost four and a half years now - 10 December 2020.

Our little community as been at this current home since November 2022. And before that, an interim home that lasted a couple years if memory serves.

I would submit that our community has been under new management for a sufficient length of time, that we really should not be excusing current behavior on the basis of how Stuart enforced the rules in the past. We may carry on the same name, and have fond memories of Stuart - but this isn't his board anymore. This is a new place that should have its own rules that are fairly enforced against all transgressors. So Mods, lay down the damn law and let's get on with it.

Thanks James. I would point out that I’ve not excused any behaviour here based on Stu’s interpretations- please ask the Mods!

That said, those are some good suggestions, thank you.

[Pdf27]

Thanks James. I would point out that I’ve not excused any behaviour here based on Stu’s interpretations- please ask the Mods!

I don't think the Mods have used that justification, but there has been an excessively light touch on some things and a few of the problem children have used the "well Stuart let me" excuse, either explicitly or strongly implied.

[MKSheppard]

May I suggest some sort of formalized warning system?

A sort of "please calm down? Thank you" perhaps twice, before administrative action is taken?

Reason is that this forum is much lower in activity than it used to be in it's prior incarnations -- and we were never that big to begin with.

In order to prevent board death, we need to find ways of handling things so that:

1.) we don't scare off new blood who may not know the rules of conduct we run by here
and
2.) prevent the decimation of long serving members for a momentary lapse in judgement

[James1978]

SNIP

Thanks James. I would point out that I’ve not excused any behaviour here based on Stu’s interpretations- please ask the Mods!

That said, those are some good suggestions, thank you.

Oh, not you! Sorry, I should have been more clear about that.

I've had enough communications with you, both public and private, that I know you are trying to run this place properly. I much prefer you and the other Mods taking your time to craft the right solution rather than just "doing something" as a knee-jerk reaction.

[James1978]

May I suggest some sort of formalized warning system?

A sort of "please calm down? Thank you" perhaps twice, before administrative action is taken?

Reason is that this forum is much lower in activity than it used to be in it's prior incarnations -- and we were never that big to begin with.

In order to prevent board death, we need to find ways of handling things so that:

1.) we don't scare off new blood who may not know the rules of conduct we run by here
and
2.) prevent the decimation of long serving members for a momentary lapse in judgement

Agreed.

If formal warnings are posted for all to see, then when someone does get the hammer dropped on them, everyone else knows that member was already on notice. As Mark says, if someone does get the hammer dropped on them, new members who may not have been around during prior bad conduct can be directed to the prior warnings and see that this was a third strike, and was not sudden or arbitrary.

I do have a question for Mark related his comments about activity levels. In your effort to recover the old database, have you been able to access member info like email addresses so we could perhaps try to track down and invite "lost members" to join us here? I really wonder how many people we lost during the hosting turmoil who just never found where we landed. If you didn't communicate with other members off-board, or were never invited to the Facebook group, finding us may be easier said than done.