"Shitting on people" - Metaphor as rule and rule as metaphor

Discussion in 'The Undercity' started by rigorist, Apr 3, 2017.

  1. rigorist

    rigorist On the beach

    I think some thought needs to go into actually describing the behavior that will not be allowed. Just using a metaphor, while charming in the abstract, will probably lead to lots of arguments about what it actually means.

    I think, in general, the rule needs to be focused upon posts made to the forum (which includes PMs). K-Staff cannot and should not try to enforce behavior rules in other places on the internet. This is not new knowledge to our God-King, but needs to be laid out for members.

    I also think that the rule needs to specify that K-Staff will only enforce behavioral rules about posts. There will not be actions taken against people who are "problematic" just because they are problematic. Only posting things will draw the attention of K-Staff and the attention will be only upon the post, not the person. Again, this is old forum wisdom, but should be made explicit in the re-founding documents.
    • Agree x 3
  2. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    So, I think I need to make this thing clearer:

    The terminology in question does not denote behavior that will not be allowed.

    Like, it's genuinely and fairly obviously impossible to even detect the thing, let alone do anything about it externally.

    So part of the issue here is that we have two completely separate things. One is the "please agree to this" thing, which cannot be enforced, not even a little bit, by moderator-type powers.

    The other is the set of things about which mods will take action.
    • Agree x 2
  3. Snitchanon

    Snitchanon What's a mod to a nonbeliever.

    Difference between "agreed code of conduct" and "actual rules".

    Now whisper sweet llawyerings to me, Rigs.
  4. rigorist

    rigorist On the beach

    Considering I just read it that way, perhaps you should work your phrasing. You have to assume people are reading this "cold" and without all the context we have developed over the past several months here.
    • Agree x 4
  5. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    Does it seem unclear in the "read this first" thread, or just in the "agree to X" language?
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice