Time to update the JC rules ?

E.i. The promotion of alcohol or tobacco for minors is forbidden. The promotion of illegal drugs, or irresponsible use of legal drugs, is forbidden.

E.ii. Posting whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs is not forbidden, however you remain responsible for ensuring your posts do not break any existing rules of the local forum, or contravene the TOS.

 

I like E.i. and E.ii, E.

 

Elol.

 

I could very easily interpret E.ii as breaking E.i simply by posting "I'm drunk." Also it would allow someone to post about smoking pot in Amsterdam in the JCC which, I believe, is currently forbidden as well. Don't really know/care if that's the intent, but I'd wager that from an ownership-perspective they would prefer it not since the server is on US legal ground.

This is why I prefer more clarification all around, rather than simply making things "more grey."

 

If we're going to keep trying until we find a way of putting this that doesn't allow for canny interpretation of something or other, this thread will never, ever, end.

 

Why even mention being intoxicated at all? If you break a rule while intoxicated, you're moderated for that rule being broken, not for your state of mind.

Using Everton's suggestion above;

Use E.i, delete E.ii.


Problem solved. If it doesn't matter if you post drunk, why even mention it in the rules?

 

No you couldn't. Posting "I'm drunk" is not promoting irresponsible use of legal drugs. However, posting "I'm pissed and loving it" most certainly is.

Then you simply say to the person posting about smoking pot in Amsterdam that such posting is not allowed because the servers are on US legal ground, and thus their actions constitute promotion of illegal drugs (assuming they were promoting it and not just mentioning it off hand), and thus subject to rule E.i.

I know it's a curious thing to make a rule about something that's not forbidden, however it does feel like a natural progression from rule E.i. Doesn't need to go any further, but the mind makes the leap, y'know? Plus, it's an issue that obviously still fascinates, and possibly on those grounds it deserves definitive word. This thread has been full of people going on about how they don't think we can enforce a rule that says you must not post whilst under the influence, so it feels like a logical step to announce openly that it's not forbidden. There it is for all to know.

 

It's not just the breaking of the ToS that's the problem. We discourage posting while intoxicated and we want rules that prohibit the promoting of alcohol, especially to minors. The thing is - and this is where different moderator interpretation comes in - when a rule says "you cannot promote alcohol to minors", some will take a post like "I'm so drunk!" as promoting alcohol and edit the comment.

 

Well, ObiWan, I would think that what matters there is for you to clarify here and in MS exactly what you mean by the post. At the end of the day, however, you guys select Mods based on what you think of their judgment. I don't think too many people will quibble about an edit of a "I'm so drunk" post, provided that people aren't being banned for such a post.

Personally, I don't see how anyone could interpret "I'm so drunk" as promoting alcohol consumption for minors. I recognize the desire to make it clear that posting while drunk is discouraged, which is why I liked Carmen's version (and frankly, Everton's version as well). It's intent is clear, but is not draconian. Just the way a good rule should be.

 

Well said. And of course prior to October last year, most mods managed to enforce the 'no promotion of alcohol to minors' just fine without any such explicit rule about drunken posting being written (or indeed in existence).

 

Can we finally get rid of some of that St. Patrick's Day stuff that always gets people upset?

 

According to established policy -- as said by Sape that "spanned years and administrations" -- this has been one of the oldest policies we've had. Certainly we can change it, but to say it's not the rule now or has not been the rule for a very, very long time is simply revisionist history.

This is why I'm dead-set on clarity though, jp; because I'm hearing in discussions that we're having that we're merely making the rule MORE AMBIGUOUS. Which means I would be perfectly within my rights to ban on sight for someone posting "I'm drunk" whereas someone else might merely edit/warn and both situations would be fine under the rules; it would be at the discretion of the moderator "on scene" as it were (especially in an area like the JCC, were none of the JCC moderators to be online) which is only (again, IMO) going to serve to make everything more complicated than it is right now.

And I don't think anyone wants that, do we?

 

Just don't post drunk and don't announce it to the world. Problem solved.

 

If you follow the first part of that (don't post drunk), then the second part is irrelevant.

 

So you have a better grasp of the JC rules & history than the last 5 head admins, including Sape whom you namechecked above (and a number of former administrators)?

I agree there is 'revisionist history' going on here, but unfortunately it's all coming from you. Yeah, it could be considered a rule now, but only because you wrote it as such last oct

David, I know you have some aversion to admitting you were wrong in this instance. God only knows why. So, just to play Devil's Advocate for a minute, I would very much like you to answer a question I have posed to you previously in these discussions, and which Vert also asked (quoted below), that is;

You've got to have some sound reason and logic behind a rule. The idea behind the 'no mod'ing while drunk' rule was that your judgement could be screwy, and that's not something a moderator should be engaging in - judging while judgement is screwy. But what's the logic and reasoning behind 'no posting while intoxicated'?

 

Well, if you're just editing it, that's huge step forward from the mods who in the last year (or longer in dp4m's case) have been instant-banning for it. Almost everything's a judgment call to some extent.

In some cases (say a 15th birthday celebration thread or an AA support thread) "I'm so drunk" could be considered spam / inappropriate and worthy of an edit. In almost all other cases, it very obviously is not.

If a mod cannot assess whether a comment saying that a poster is drunk is, via its context and syntax, something that could glorify drinking to minors, then they probably should seriously reconsider their own suitability as a mod.

 

Based on a lot of the recent posts in this thread... yes.

 

Well that's an idea. What if we talked about just editing for single comments like that (if a moderator sees fit to do so), but if they become multiple, then we ban?

 

I'm looking at the thread in the MS where Sape (and Kate and roo and all the other current and former admins) say that posting "I'm drunk" is a ban?

This isn't me arbitrarily engaging in a flight of fancy, jp. This is me enforcing a rule as handed down by admin after admin after admin. And yes, what you posted from Dingo and Vert above do not match the information available in the MS.

 

dp is absolutely correct on this. I looked at the same thread and took the same thing from it. It was very cut and dry. This is a rule that was enforced correctly based on the interpretation from administrators.

 

Is it really that difficult for people to refrain from bragging about being smashed, and on the interweb? This shouldn't even be an issue.

 

Several possibilities here, then:

A) Things have changed since I stepped down (how DARE they!! )
B) I was always misinformed, believing that a normal user posting while drunk was OK, while everyone else believed otherwise
C) I was once aware that posting while drunk as a regular user was against the rules, but have since forgotten, since it's been so darn long since I've thought about it.
D) There was never any rule about posting while drunk, explicitly, but some time after I stepped down, through the turnover of mods and differing interpretations, it has somehow come to be assumed that there always was a rule against it.

Now, I really don't know which of the above is the actual case, but I can tell you this - as far as I know, posting while drunk was never explicitly against any rule, unless you were a moderator.

I am quite familiar with the very instant this matter became relevant, having been online and a moderator when tonyf, then a moderator, posted that he was drunk in a thread. He was disciplined for this, after some discussion on whether or not it was appropriate behavior for a moderator.

And as far as my memory serves, the only other consideration regarding drinking was that in the original terms of service (which I authored ... or really just frankenstein'd together from varios TOS's on the web) there was a section on 'encouraging illegal behavior', which was interpreted as "no encouraging other underage members to drink". The key here was the illegality of the act, and encouragement thereof. I don't think I ever saw anyone interpret "I'm drunk" as a statement of fact as a celebration of or encouragement of underage drinking.

So, take it for what it's worth (which, considering my infrequent posting habits as of late, perhaps isn't as much as it used to be), but coming from a previous head administrator, to the best of my current knowledge, there was no rule regarding people announcing that they were drunk, much less posting while drunk, but otherwise following the rules.

If it has come to pass that some rule has evolved for such a situation, I would strongly question why it exists. What purpose does it serve? Justifying a rule's existence simply because "it's always been a rule" is no sort of justification, and in this case, isn't even an agreed upon fact, so I think you'd have to do a little better than that to justify the need for the rule.

// back to my cave

 

This may be how the rule evolved forward. A combination of "promoting and encouragement" and the wording of "posting while intoxicated is prohibited". But going forward, we're discussing re-wording the rule to be more clear for moderators and users. For instance, posting the words "I'm drunk" won't automatically get you banned, but it could get you edited depending on the context (and like most other things, history would be taken into account if an actual ban occurs).

 

dp, if you're willfully LOOKING for a way to make "I'm drunk" bannable, then you're always going to find it. As of RIGHT NOW and based on all the admins in this thread, posting "I'm drunk" is not bannable. Are you fishing for someone to post this rule?

E.ii. (rev.) Posting the words "I'm drunk" is not, in and of itself, a violation of any rules.


An alternate wording could be:

E.ii. (rev.) Posting the words "I'm drunk" is (obviously) not, in and of itself, a violation of any rules (but dp4m wouldn't believe it unless we made this rule.)

 

I'd just log onto a sock, promote it, ban you and then demote the sock. Duh!

And Vert, I go with B) above. You were always Mr. Ivory Tower!

Anyways, I think we've got something workable going on in discussion now in the MS. Hopefully it'll be "not ready for prime time" soon-ish and roo will whip 506 and he'll post something.