Rules discussion and the announcements forum

I've created an announcements forum, and I've posted up a Rules thread:
http://www.londonfgss.com/thread17652.html

And that's supposed to be the word of God or whatever... just the facts ma'am, etc.

But I may well have got something way wrong or perhaps you disagree with part of it, or perhaps you think I'm missing something?

Well, that's what this thread is for... the Rules are the Rules, but you can tell me I'm wrong here and we can try and strike a balance in what the rules say.

The gist of the rules is:
1) Define what goes and doesn't go on the site (i.e. spam, trolls, idiots, etc)
2) Define who is liable for what, and underline that if you're a twat then I accept no responsibility for that
3) Define how the finances and ownership works (I own it all, but do need revenue to cover costs or else the place can't survive, and if it ever makes any money then I hope to actually buy myself something nice as a reward)
4) I dunno... did I say anything else?

The rules thread will be closed, and I'll edit and no comments go in there.

The other threads that get shoved into announcements are open to replies, go for it.

However... the announcement threads can only be made by me or with prior agreement. This is less a chat area than a place for long-term notices.

The announcements forum will contain:

• Rules
  
• Guidance
  
• HowTo's
  
  

Stuff that are notices for all. Stuff to help clarify things and to help the place run smoother.

I'd love to imagine that we didn't need some consensus of rules and behaviour and how to educate others as to how the forum functions, but realistically the unspoken thing we've had to date doesn't work so well now that we're a really large site. So this is all about trying to solve that by making it more written.

Overall though...

• Break a rule rather than do something absolutely stupid.
  
• HowTo's are guidance only, there may be many ways to do something.
  
• Take it all with a pinch of salt... it's about making the forum easier and more transparent, not about being a dictator (though obviously as the sole owner I am one).
  

Good work, Velocio.

1 Serve the Public Trust,
2 Protect the Innocent,
3 Uphold the Law.

oh and one other one but i can't quite remember it

post pictures of chimps?

Dead or alive, you're coming with me.

i'll buy that for a dollar

*Additionally you grant us (the owner and administrator) permission to use the content in any way within the domain of the services provided without limitation of commercial use (scenario: we would not have to share donations meant to fund the server with hippy just because he posts a lot).

*Awww shucks.. I always wanted to make it into the forum rules.
I still think profit sharing with me is a good thing.. :)

You'd only waste it on Castlemaine XXXX

you had me at hello?

Retard question - how do you edit thread titles after posting them.

For spelling etc.

Unfortunately you can't/

Ideally editing the first post should do it, but it doesn't.

So PM me :)

what's the difference between naming/shaming and flaming? in the words of the great pauline hanson...[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Hanson"]please explain[/ame].

couple of threads ended badly. of course it wasn't scott's purpose to invoke flaming/threats, but ive been here long enough to know that it would end up that way.

oh, the other thread was the nagasawa-ebay one. i know there were no actual material losses there, totally diff situation, but the accused individual/s felt threatened nonetheless. i thought that was treated differently (less bias?).

Good question, and I've never sat down and thought about it but let me try to do so now (uh-oh... thinking it out whilst typing is never a good idea)...

I'm attempting to do as little to no moderation as possible, and to effectively let the mass of people define the lines of acceptability and where the edges of debate occur. This should protect me from making shitty decisions as by and large I don't have to do anything and I won't be caught out when the mood changes and the consensus falls in a way that I wouldn't be used to.

What this actually means is that it's obvious when an individual crosses the line, but it's not so obvious when the entire mass crosses the line. The latter being a re-definition of the boundaries of acceptability, the former being a step beyond those boundaries.

So the difference is in the way that the mass operates. It's pretty much up to the members of the community to define the standards, but if you're all silent on lynch mobs then you are helping to set the standard.

What action would I and do I take when lines are crossed? Mostly none at all. Really, I don't want to moderate at all, I think it can only end badly for me over long periods of time... you'll all get chips on your shoulders at me, about the times that you lot were twats... hardly seems fair on me. So mostly I do nothing. But occasionally I might speak to someone who crossed the line. And only when an individual seems truly intent on crossing the line spectacularly do I end up banning anyone or doing something (ononelangster).

So yeah, it seems the difference is the number of people who cross the line. If an individual does it we might burn them, and if all of you do it then nothing at all happens.