Basic Code Of Conduct?

This is never something I really wanted to do here but, in the interests of harmony among a very large and ever-increasing membership, there are things which should be made clear regarding conduct of members, moderators and, yes, even admins. Plus, there have been quite a few mentions recently from members wanting to have some clarification or guidelines regarding what is acceptable behaviour and what isn't.

We'll bat around suggestions for a few days, then implement a very fair and basic set of guideline rules to be placed on the main board, just so that everybody posting or moderating here knows where they stand.


What I really need to have opinions on are the following:

What kind of behaviour (or amount of such behaviour) warrants a ban or suspension?

How much rope should a member be given before being banned or suspended?

Should there be a "three strikes" system or somesuch to determine when or whether a member warrants being banned or suspended?

Is every single moderator or admin here trusted by enough people to be in charge of bans and suspensions?

Are there any subjects, topics, comments, viewpoints, etc which should be deemed as completely unacceptable, or unacceptable at the risk of instant suspension or a ban?

Where does everyone stand on the editing of posts by mods or admin, through both deletions and additions?


Any other questions or issues regarding rules, feel free to chime in. I want this to be fair, so as many opinions as possible are very welcome.

M wrote:

What kind of behaviour (or amount of such behaviour) warrants a ban or suspension?

Blatantly racist, hateful, defamatory, or illicit threads should obviously warrant a ban. Threads about hating particular races or degrading particular members here are just uncalled for. Compared to that, mindless spam isn't as bad. I'd gladly read a fairy tale regarding Barack Obama's plan to send all white people to concentration camps, as opposed to reading a thread that refers to Middle Eastern people as "smelly ragheads" and claims that "all muslims are suicide bombers". That type of shit is just bad for business, frankly.

Quote :

How much rope should a member be given before being banned or suspended?

Should there be a "three strikes" system or somesuch to determine when or whether a member warrants being banned or suspended?[/quote]

I think 3 strikes works well. A member should receive a few warnings, and if they don't take a hint, then they should be suspended for x days. After that, if they fuck up a few more times, then their ass should be kicked to the curb. We need to apply the same rules to every member, of course.

Quote :

Is every single moderator or admin here trusted by enough people to be in charge of bans and suspensions?

I'm probably not at liberty to answer that.

Quote :

Where does everyone stand on the editing of posts by mods or admin, through both deletions and additions?

If a thread contains content that may put the entire forum at risk, or contains derogatory remarks aimed at a particular member, then a mod should have the right to remove it. All posts from spambots should also be automatically canned.

We might want to add some rules to this, though. For example, when a mod removes content, they need to specifically state why they did that in the thread, along with their name, and then also report it to an admin.

As far as additions go, mods shouldn't be allowed to add anything to a user's post. The only exception might be modifying or adding to a topic title, just for clarification's sake.

Control wrote:

M wrote:

What kind of behaviour (or amount of such behaviour) warrants a ban or suspension?

Blatantly racist, hateful, defamatory, or illicit threads should obviously warrant a ban. Threads about hating particular races or degrading particular members here are just uncalled for. Compared to that, mindless spam isn't as bad. I'd gladly read a fairy tale regarding Barack Obama's plan to send all white people to concentration camps, as opposed to reading a thread that refers to Middle Eastern people as "smelly ragheads" and claims that "all muslims are suicide bombers". That type of shit is just bad for business, frankly.

Racial or ethnic insults should be grounds for suspension/termination i.e. "smelly ragheads", "wetbacks", etc...

Statements of purported fact (but aren't truly facts) such as "all Muslims are bombers" should be grounds for suspension/termination.

Statements of opinion, controversial as they may be, should not be grounds for suspension/termination i.e. "f**k Islam; they don't treat us with respect, so why should we treat their dead with respect?" is not something that I would suspend or terminate over.

M wrote:

Is every single moderator or admin here trusted by enough people to be in charge of bans and suspensions?

No.

Control wrote:

If a thread contains content that may put the entire forum at risk, or contains derogatory remarks aimed at a particular member, then a mod should have the right to remove it. All posts from spambots should also be automatically canned.

We might want to add some rules to this, though. For example, when a mod removes content, they need to specifically state why they did that in the thread, along with their name, and then also report it to an admin.

As far as additions go, mods shouldn't be allowed to add anything to a user's post. The only exception might be modifying or adding to a topic title, just for clarification's sake.

I pretty much agree with everything stated above, but we need to be more clear on what is considered a "spam bot". Just because one person may post the same thing across multiple forums doesn't mean, to me at least, that it's spam. If I were on the Internet as much as some people, typing away 12 hours a day, I'd probably cut corners and copy and paste some of my posts into other forums. I pretty much only post at Bond And Beyond, so it's a moot issue, but for some people it may save them time. I don't really care if someone posts the exact same thing at IMDB.com as he/she does at Bond And Beyond. I would have no way of knowing that a person posts the same material at multiple forums unless someone was actively investigating a member to see where else they post.

Ultimately, M, you must do what you have to do to safeguard the forum's survival. If Forumotion has given you speech guidelines then those should serve as the basic parameters for your policies on posting. Once you craft those policies, you should post them for all to see.

Beyond that, it's really a matter of preference. J7's inanity, infantilism and banality bother me more than his racism. And as such, if this were my forum, I would ban highly active posters based upon those traits. But that's just me. I'm sure you're much more forgiving of those weaknesses.

I can roll with Grav and Control. I think we all have a fair idea of what constitutes "inappropriate content".

Is every single moderator or admin here trusted by enough people to be in charge of bans and suspensions?

Unequivocally yes, because it doesn't matter what I think of them. If they are mods, I respect that they have been given the authority to do what mods do. As it turns out, I do have confidence in all 10 Mods on this board, but even if I didn't, the only recourse I would exercise would be to protest to M. I wouldn't call them out publicly. That would be disrespectful.

Mods need to be able to do the following without hesitation,

1. edit or delete inappropriate posts on the spot. leaving an explanation is optional. Sometimes its better not to draw attention to the fact that the post ever existed. if you do scribble something by way of warning or explanation, then leave your initials.

2. suspend any member for 30 days, no questions, as a result of an inappropriate post. Again leaving a public explanation is optional for the same reason as above, but do fire off a one-line pm notice of suspension to the member. If the member wants back, let them appeal to the Mod in question or to M. Then a more protracted discussion can be had, if needed or desired.

3.For the sake of order in the universe, Mods must not allow their authority to be challenged. This is simply addressing reality. The easist way to get fired in the workplace is to challenge the boss' authority. You can argue with the boss, but you can't pretend he/she isn't the boss. The boss is right even when they are "wrong", because it is their job to make decisions. You can argue with a hockey ref over a call, but as soon as you call him an asshole, the arms goes up, and you are headed to an early shower. Any aggressive insulting of mods should be considered inappropriate content and dealt with decisively by any mod that happens to notice the conduct. Otherwise mods can't do their job.

4. Mods should not hesitate to referee any name calling or uncivil behaviour between members as well. This is common practise on any board, for the mods to step in and ask for decorum. Mods on any message board, do have the purview to moderate any discussion, although mods shouldn't publicly moderate each other. I expect M will be constructing a Mod zone where we can privately discuss any such issues amongst ourselves.

If any of us turn into despots, then M can dump us. We mods exist at his suffrance.

Regarding 3 strike system, I don't think this needs to formalized. Warnings don't mean suspensions anyway, but three warnings might be enough for a suspension. But suspensions could be immediate too, depending on the situation. Multiple suspensions I think should be grounds for permanent ban without further explanation. Mind you they don't have to be but they could be.

eg if I had stumbled across J7's infamous "jew" posting,(a thoroughly ignorant posting) I would have immediately deleted the post and suspended him for 30 days, whilst recommending permanent ban to M. I would have fired off a one-line PM advising him of the suspension.

What my kamaraden say above with the addition of: once banned, stay banned.

I'll give this thread until the weekend, then draw up a list of "do's and dont's" as a guideline and stick it in either "enquiries" or "new member" as well as adding it to the official T&Cs. Let's just see where we all stand and what we can agree on first.

M wrote:

I'll give this thread until the weekend, then draw up a list of "do's and dont's" as a guideline and stick it in either "enquiries" or "new member" as well as adding it to the official T&Cs. Let's just see where we all stand and what we can agree on first.

To piggyback on what others have stated....if we're moderating someone else's post, I can't think of any circumstances where we would be adding to a post. Deleting obscene language, pictures, porn, racial insults or taunts....yes. But we shouldn't replace the content with our own content, jokes, smilies or whatnot. And we shouldn't edit a person's post to taunt them, make fun of them, draw attention to our opinion of them, make social commentary, etc...

Just a minor thing, but we have got the "reason for editing" text field.

i.e.

BAB was established on the provision that the members acted in a mature fashion. That was all going well until j7wild turned up. But new members, such as Gravity's Silhouette, James Bond and Walecs (and plenty others) confirmed that new recruits outside the circle of MI6's refugee camp have the ability to ease their way in, make peace and offer opinions without causing chaos. A code of conduct I don't think is entirely necessary. Aside from this overblown issue of j7wild, we've been much better than what Keeping The British End Up had been.

M, I'll leave it up to you - I trust you.

M wrote:

How much rope should a member be given before being banned or suspended?

Having been a moderator before, this one is actually a lot simpler than it seems. I've found that most people change when their behaviour is pointed out the first time. If they have no intention of changing, then then dig their own grave pretty quickly.

The tricky ones are the long-standing memebers who occasionally forget themselves.

M wrote:

Should there be a "three strikes" system or somesuch to determine when or whether a member warrants being banned or suspended?

Generally speaking, yes. On the first offence, someone should get a warning. For repeated behaviour, they get an infraction - a record should be kept - and on their third infraction, it's a ban. The length of the ban depends on the kind of trouble they have been causing.

M wrote:

Is every single moderator or admin here trusted by enough people to be in charge of bans and suspensions?

They certainly should be trustworthy. I have my doubts as to whether or not they are, given some of the behaviour surrounding the j7 incident.

M wrote:

Are there any subjects, topics, comments, viewpoints, etc which should be deemed as completely unacceptable, or unacceptable at the risk of instant suspension or a ban?

Anything racist, pornographic or illegal rates an instaban of a few days. If further discussion is needed, the mdoerators could easily talk amongst themselves and make the ban permanent if need be. And by "illegal", I mean - for example - discussing where and how to download torrents. Discussing the legality of torrents or a piece of legislation designed to shut down a torrent website (like Megaupload or The Pirate Bay) is fine.

Repeatedly abusing other members - such as this (especially after being asked/told to stop) - also warrants a ban.

M wrote:

Where does everyone stand on the editing of posts by mods or admin, through both deletions and additions?

I don't think there are many circumstances that would require a post to be edited. If something is serious enough to attract the attention of the moderators, then any contact between moderator and poster should be done via private message. If something is serious enough to warrant a ban, then it should probably be deleted entirely.

If, however, a post need to be edited - for whatever reason - then the moderator who edits it should leave a message explaining (in a few words) why that edit was made. They should also leave their name, and write it in such a way - such as blue font - that makes it clear that it was something they edited into the post, rather than something the original poster changed themselves. For example:

Alright, folks, this has gone far enough - let's get back on-topic, please

--Prisoner Monkeys

It goes without saying any moderator who edits someone's post to make it look like they said something they did not - as happened with j7 - then that moderator cannot be trusted with their powers, and should probably lose them, at least until such time as M is satisfied that they can be trusted once more.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

It goes without saying any moderator who edits someone's post to make it look like they said something they did not - as happened with j7...

Actually, no one ever did that. Inserting smileys and GIFs into a spammer's post is incredibly different from altering their words and opinions. J7 was always free to express his ridiculous opinions without moderators editing what he said. Sure, the smileys and GIFs were perhaps uncalled for (and funny, no matter what anyone thinks), but it wasn't as if we were altering j7's words to make him appear as if he was a complete bozo. He did that all by himself.

As for the Tony Scott remark that you mentioned, I have no idea what that was. I didn't see it. And who's to say he didn't do it himself? We have absolutely no way of proving whether he did it, or whether a mod did it, so it's best not point fingers at anyone until we get some more facts (and I doubt we ever will). After all, at that point, j7 was trying to make himself out to be a victim. He wouldn't even admit to that Stormfront shit and, instead, pinned it on all of the moderators. :roll:

While we are on the topic of conduct, might we consider that using religious ephitets to express outrage or anger, be discouraged.

eg "Christ that makes me mad"

Some might find it offensive or inappropriate but are reluctant to pipe up, given the more colourful nature of this board and our less shackled ability to express ourself.
However such language is not considered decorum in most civil environments, offices etc. I stress office environment. The loading dock I worked on one summer, was a different story.
The same might apply to Jewish, Muslim etc, epithets too

And you see, tiffy, that's what happens when you begin banning entire classes of speech (racist, etc.) because they're offensive--you can always find other classes to ban. Pretty soon there's less you can say than can't.

I believe the solution to offensive speech is more speech, not less. If somebody offends you, make them pay with argument, and if necessary, invective. But don't punish speech itself.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

And you see, tiffy, that's what happens when you begin banning entire classes of speech (racist, etc.) because they're offensive--you can always find other classes to ban. Pretty soon there's less you can say than can't.

I believe the solution to offensive speech is more speech, not less. If somebody offends you, make them pay with argument, and if necessary, invective. But don't punish speech itself.

Good point Khan. I was careful to say discouraged not ban, but there is something to be said for decorum.

Yes, cultivating decorum is always a good thing. And toward that end, I would like to see less profanity on the site. It serves little purpose other than to annoy.

Control wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

It goes without saying any moderator who edits someone's post to make it look like they said something they did not - as happened with j7...

Actually, no one ever did that. Inserting smileys and GIFs into a spammer's post is incredibly different from altering their words and opinions. J7 was always free to express his ridiculous opinions without moderators editing what he said. Sure, the smileys and GIFs were perhaps uncalled for (and funny, no matter what anyone thinks), but it wasn't as if we were altering j7's words to make him appear as if he was a complete bozo. He did that all by himself.

As for the Tony Scott remark that you mentioned, I have no idea what that was. I didn't see it. And who's to say he didn't do it himself? We have absolutely no way of proving whether he did it, or whether a mod did it, so it's best not point fingers at anyone until we get some more facts (and I doubt we ever will). After all, at that point, j7 was trying to make himself out to be a victim. He wouldn't even admit to that Stormfront shit and, instead, pinned it on all of the moderators. :roll:

I read the Tony Scott remark. I also read the links someone provided where he posted the exact same comment at another forum. On this one I'll defend JWild. His remark was something along the lines of "Is this a joke? He had 8-10 projects in development". It may have been a bit cold and removed from any sort of sympathy for Tony Scott's family and friends, but I wouldn't have suspended him over it or even warned him. Unless he said something else that I missed or that was edited out, I found the post to be innocuous.

I'm not sure what's happening here. Maybe it's the natural process of growing up. The site has been up and running for over a year now (technically two years, but I understand that no one was really pushing the site or posting on it until March??? of 2011) and perhaps the site is evolving or going through growing pains, but I think some of what we're punishing JWild for are comments that, had they come from anybody else, would have been regarded as hilarious, irreverent, ironic, "dry humor", "British humor", etc.....Not all of it, but some of it.

Please understand, that statement should not be regarded as a desire to bring JWild back, but more of a reminder that we were supposed to be the anti-dote to places like MI6 and CBn. I'm concerned that if we become too dependent upon stringent rules and laws and regulations and three-strike systems that we'll end up legislating the fun out of the place. We owe nothing to anybody. This isn't a work place. It's not the government. It's not a court system. We don't have to be "fair". We should take these people on a case by case basis, assess the *intent* of the"offensive" post, and go from there. People don't have a legal right to post at Bond And Beyond. They post at the leisure and benevolence of M and Forum Motion. We can't be sued for denying people the privilege of posting here. If they don't like it they can always find another forum to go to (and they usually do).

I generally agree with that, Gravy. I don't much care for the rules and regulations either. I mean do we really have enough problem members to justify a codex? I think you go on a case-by-case basis, and if somebody creates a prolonged furor, as J7 has, you ban him. Simple as that. And if they don't like the fact that they didn't get due process and a day in court, tough.

PS--I do still favor a code of conduct for mods, though. Mods have unique powers and should be compelled to use them impartially and professionally.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

I generally agree with that, Gravy. I don't much care for the rules and regulations either. I mean do we really have enough problem members to justify a codex? I think you go on a case-by-case basis, and if somebody creates a prolonged furor, as J7 has, you ban him. Simple as that. And if they don't like the fact that they didn't get due process and a day in court, tough.

PS--I do still favor a code of conduct for mods, though. Mods have unique powers and should be compelled to use them impartially and professionally.

Agreed. Although, quite honestly, I find it somewhat startling that any moderator would need to be told not to edit a post to say something it didn't say by the original poster, or to mock the person making the post. M may want to strengthen the rules on moderators, but I like the idea of moderators having more than enough discretion to decide what we'll tolerate and what we won't from the regular members.

I am against the concept of a member creating multiple-accounts and multi-posting as separate personalities. It's essentially 'padding' B&B and the forums. I'm also really uncomfortable interacting with someone when it's really someone else who's already here under another handle.

If this is supposed to be a gag, I'm not amused. Can M or anyone else do an IP check to filter out multiple IDs?

If Dog's comments are a reference to me, I have two accounts here, Erica Ambler and Cicciolina. The latter was intended to be a read-only account so I could see what was happening in Baker St without the usual cries of 'ambler's back'. As Sharky rumbled me straight away you may as well delete it.

The other accounts that have been attributed to me aren't mine. I'm sure if you do an ISP check you'll be able to see that.

"BondLover12" and "Myra Breckinridge" were me. I won't deny that. I also created "Ambler, quit effin around" in response to "j8wild", "Where the F is M? " and "The Vanishing Admin."

Largo's Shark wrote:

"BondLover12" and "Myra Breckinridge" were me. I won't deny that. I also created "Ambler, quit effin around" in response to "j8wild", "Where the F is M? " and "The Vanishing Admin."

Seriously?

No, I don't believe it. I just can't. If what you're saying is true........ I'm sorry. I just can't believe it. I won't. I can't accept that you would be that reckless with the forums and its "reputation" after having been one of the leading critics in favor of removing JWild for the harm you alleged he was capable of doing.

Were you "HotGaySex" and "GoodAssBlowing" as well?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

"BondLover12" and "Myra Breckinridge" were me. I won't deny that. I also created "Ambler, quit effin around" in response to "j8wild", "Where the F is M? " and "The Vanishing Admin."

Seriously?

No, I don't believe it. I just can't. If what you're saying is true........ I'm sorry. I just can't believe it. I won't. I can't accept that you would be that reckless with the forums and its "reputation" after having been one of the leading critics in favor of removing JWild for the harm you alleged he was capable of doing.

Were you "HotGaySex" and "GoodAssBlowing" as well?

It's like being stuck in the Village



Nothing...is at it seems.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Were you "HotGaySex" and "GoodAssBlowing" as well?

No, I've no idea who created those. IIRC, that was before Ambler left.

The Planet of the Apes is earth.
Soylent Green is people.
Verbal is Keyser Söze.
Dil was a bloke.
Darth Vader is Luke's father.
Rosebud was a sled.
BondLover12 and Myra Breckinridge were Largo's Shark.

I know it's a shock, and it might take a few days to settle in.