Time to update the JC rules ?

Nice, Carmen. That wording would work much better than dp4m's one, which should never have been included in the first place as it was never actually a rule here.

 

I just have to say, and hope that the statute of limitations is up, that if it weren't for drunk posting, we wouldn't have 3 Paperclips vs. Lego Stormtrooper. And a world without 3 Paperclips vs. Lego Stormtrooper is a sad world.

 

E. Promoting alcohol/tobacco use for minors is disallowed. Any posts deemed inappropriate regarding alcohol or drugs will be moderated appropriately. Posting while under the influence is also discouraged, as it can lead to inappropriate posting, which will be moderated appropriately as well.

I'm all for this!

 

How is that different than how it always has been?

 

It's not, except for the last year mods have erroneously banned users for admitting they were intoxicated. They were wrong to do so, and we're trying to have the mods realise this by removing/rewording the new(ish) line in the rules saying 'you may not post while drunk'.

 

Yeah. Me too. This is precisely what I was trying to suggest, only much better put.

 

Here's what we have right now as far as the JCC and overall JC. I don't see where it says that saying "I'm drunk" or "I'm high" will get you banned. It's a bit ambiguous, but I can see where "newsworthy" and "academic" may be a bit too constricting. Under that, talking about your favorite beer or wine could conceivably be seen as inappropriate by a mod. Now, I can see where the statement "posting while intoxicated is forbidden" is something we should look at changing in the JCC rules. As we've been saying, if I'm posting "intoxicated" right now and within the TOS and you can't tell, then that's really hard to quantify.

 

It never has, there's just been a couple of cases where mods have interpreted this gray area that way, like in JP's case above.

 

Now, I can see where the statement "posting while intoxicated is forbidden" is something we should look at changing in the JCC rules.

Absolutely, because that is the "rule" which has sprung into existence in the last year that mods have been using to ban people who say "I'm drunk". Carmen's rewording will fix this.

 

Yeah. That's the only bit I had a problem with, personally. The rest seemed ok to me.

 

The rules don't say that posting "I'm drunk" will get you banned, however they imply that when they say "posting while intoxicated is strictly forbidden." If it's forbidden, and you're doing it, then you're probably going to get banned, right? I don't think it's a far stretch to say that it could be interpreted that way, which is why I support writing it in such a way that it can't be interpreted that way.

 

Post more often, sucka!

 

What if you are doing it and not breaking any other rules? Might as well add "I'm drunk" to the word filter

 

Huh? There's nothing at all wrong with posting "I'm drunk" (despite what a number of mods have believed for the last year or more). And if you're not breaking any rules, it doesn't matter if you're drunk, stoned, concussed, possessed... which is what we're trying to ensure all the mods understand.

 

I thought this was what we were getting at?

 

If a poster is drunk, but just being a little goofier than usual, and not picking fights, hitting on everything that moves, and acting like a complete jackass (things that would generally get you kicked out of any drinking establishment), I see nothing wrong with it, if the poster is of legal drinking age in his / her country.

 

As clarification for Jaypee, since he LOVES the clarification, posting while drunk == banned had been how it had always been explained to me as of 2003 when I was promoted in January.

 

I said that a page ago. No need to point fingers it's been the rule and we are talking about revising it

 

/it has already been revised.

 

Yes, and whoever explained that to you was wrong. I'm glad we finally have it cleared up.

 

I am amused that I used to get you two confused when you were both mods.

 

I still get them confused.

 

We both had purple. I think we agreed on one thing in the MS once, but I may be wrong about that.

 

I wanted to get discussion going again on the current item on the table, the proposed 'drunk' rule by carmenite. Again, it says:

"E. Promoting alcohol/tobacco use for minors is disallowed. Any posts deemed inappropriate regarding alcohol or drugs will be moderated appropriately. Posting while under the influence is also discouraged, as it can lead to inappropriate posting, which will be moderated appropriately as well. "

We've been discussing this in MS ever since it first came up. Personally, I like this new wording too and I'm for it, but I wanted to make sure we have an understanding with it. The more I read the rule, the more I realize that it relies heavily on moderator opinion. It's more ambiguous then the current rule that it's proposed to replace. When you have a team of 40+ moderators and you have a rule that relies on moderator discretion, nothing really changes. The adage goes: the more you change, the more things stay the same. "Moderated appropriately" is mentioned twice in those three sentences making this a discretionary rule. Everyone takes this rule differently. In the future, we are most likely going to have more discussion on this the first time someone gets edited on something involving alcohol because they interpreted the rule differently then the moderator that edited them. I'd rather discuss this as much as we can now, then later. This is why I wanted discussion to continue on this and update you on what we're thinking in MS.