Senate Official Forum Rules and Policy Feedback Thread

Senate Floor Rules and Regulations

---

Hello, and welcome to the Senate Floor! Before you begin posting here, we would like to outline for you some of the rules and guidelines that will help make your time here more enjoyable. These rules are in addition to those that apply across all of the boards.

[hr]
[u][b]A. Behavior[/b][/u]

[ol][li][color=FireBrick]Users are completely responsible for their behavior and not anyone else's.[/color] All users are expected to abide by the rules regardless of whatever provocation they may face. If you are being provoked, report it to a moderator. Do not use it as an excuse to violate the rules yourself.[/li][li]Flaming, Baiting, and trolling are not allowed under any circumstances. [color=FireBrick]Avoid negative personal comments about any other users. Keep things to the issues, not the people.[/color] Avoid generalizing about or labeling the beliefs of those who disagree with you. If you see any of the above behaviors, please report them to the moderators immediately.[/li][li]Swearing and other explicit language is not allowed. When in doubt about a word, don't use it. If you choose to star out a word, do so completely using asterisks (****). Inappropriate language will be edited on sight. This includes abbreviations of questionable words.[/li][li]Spam is not allowed in the Senate Floor. Spam consists of any messages or threads posted without promoting the appropriate topic of discussion. [color=FireBrick]This includes the direct posting of news stories or other articles without providing a basis for discussion.[/color][/li][li]Condescending posts are not appropriate here. Each user has his own, unique background and experiences. There is no excuse to talk down to anyone. None of us is any better than anyone else here.[/li][li][color=FireBrick]Warnings may be given to users who misbehave.[/color] These warnings can take the form of an edit, a post, or a PM. If you have any questions about a warning, contact the moderator via PM. [color=FireBrick]Multiple warnings could result in a ban.[/color] Extreme offenses may warrant a ban without warning.[/li][/ol]
[hr]
[u][b]B. Topics[/b][/u]

[ol][li]The Senate Floor is designed to allow mature discussion of more mature topics. These topics can include, but are not limited to, politics, religion, and other social issues. If you have any doubts about whether a thread is appropriate, PM a moderator and they will help you. Inappropriate threads may be locked and/or deleted by a moderator.[/li][li][b]Although this board is devoted to mature topics, some topics still require moderator approval before being posted.[/b] These include sexual and related topics. [b]PM a moderator for approval of any such threads.[/b][/li][li]We invite new threads, but they should be different from current ones. Redundant threads will be redirected and locked. Similarly, sometimes a topic becomes too inflammatory and will be locked for a time. In such cases, do not start a new thread on the same topic without moderator approval. Avoid making multiple threads in a short period of time. [b]If you have any questions as to why a thread was locked, PM the moderator who locked it.[/b][/li][li]Some threads will be designed to allow discussion of a topic while others will be designed to debate a topic. [b]Remember that not everything needs to be an argument between two sides.[/b] Sometimes a thread can be there to simply promote understanding between two positions, not decide who is right or wrong.[/li][li]This is not a social board. If you wish to socialize with your fellow users, go to the [link=http://boards.theforce.net/board.asp?brd=10008]JCC[/link] or participate in the official [link=http://boards.theforce.net/The_Senate_Floor/b10320/13315361/]Senate Floor Social Thread[/link].[/li][li]While this is a Star Wars message board, the Senate Floor is not the place for Star Wars discussion. You can use it as an example within a thread, but no threads should be centered on Star Wars material.[/li][li]The Senate F

 

What happens if you breach the ZTP?

 

Traditionally, the "zero tolerance" thread serves as a mass warning against the listed behavior. As such, any violation skips right to the ban stage, because a warning has already been given.

It's not automatic, but does it result in an increased standard of behavior.

 

I trust, in light of recent events, that this policy will adhere to the promise of its text, and enforce ZTP indiscriminately.

As you well know, this is an item of concern for many which merits constant reminder.

 

Persoanlly I always favour a common sense and circumastance based approach over zero tolerance policies which only serve to demonstrate that things have gotten out of hand.

However a zero tolerance approach, if it is enforced evenly, will be an improvement on the current state of affairs where consistancy, and I say impartiality, has been woefully lacking.

 

We're aware of that perception, DarthKarrde, and this is the first step towards trying to to change that.

I, for one, like to appeal to the adult side of everyone but sadly it is oftentimes lacking.

Peace,

V-03

 

The perception will only change when the reality changes.

However I do exempt you from my criticism.

 

I think there may be some confusion about what this policy entails.

It's not a giant boot of authority that repeatedly kicks free speech in the face.

There is no hidden agenda, master plan, or board wide conspiracy.
Direct debate is fine. Sarcasism is fine. Using sources to refute another person's post is fine. Asking someone to support their claims is fine.

Simply put, think of it as an offical version of the golden rule. Don't call people names or post just to foster an environment of antagonism.

 

I'd like to back up DK regarding enforcing this evenly.

There is no hidden agenda, master plan, or board wide conspiracy.

I know I've been very hard on you Mr44 and KK lately, but the issue isn't a 'conspiracy' rather that we are all guilty of our own ingrained biases. So again, its not that either of you have conspired to suppress those who disagree with you, rather that rules should be enforced evenly, which I understand is open to interpretation and not always easy.

On a side note, should the threads that discuss Hurricane Katrina be merged into one thread?

 

Believe it or not, we do try to recognize that, and adapt for it.

However, at the same time, users have to recognize their own inherent biases. A good example of this was in a recent thread where I had to ban my brother for flaming (he gets unbanned tomorrow), and then issued a general warning to address the people who were baiting him. What was the response to that? Accusations of bias and favortism, and complaints about the warning. I took no other actions against anyone (except editing a comment in response to his flame, and removing posts or comments that were off-topic complaining about the warning), and yet my actions were treated as proof of bias and heavyhandedness.

At times, it feels like I can't take any action against someone with whom I tend to disagree without the charge of bias being used. If I act against someone with whom I tend to agree, it seems like no one notices or cares.

Sometimes, a warning is fair and impartial, even if it is directed at people on only one side. Cut us a little slack, for once. Please.

Kimball Kinnison

 

However, at the same time, users have to recognize their own inherent biases.

Me, biased? Thats unpossible!

Seriously though, I understand what you are saying, and perhaps your example has more to do with poor timing and a misunderstaning rather than any bias. It appeared that a mod was using their power to stifle a discussion because of personal reasons. Once Mr44 clarified the situation, the issue seemed resolved.

At times, it feels like I can't take any action against someone with whom I tend to disagree without the charge of bias being used. If I act against someone with whom I tend to agree, it seems like no one notices or cares.

We understand its a thankless job, but you guys get paid a lot to do what you do right?

Sometimes, a warning is fair and impartial, even if it is directed at people on only one side. Cut us a little slack, for once. Please.

No, no slack! C?mon KK, I am well aware I can be a ****, I?ve admitted it both directly and indirectly several times. But I have also frequently praised you, Mr44 and V03 on many occassions of being excellent moderators in addition to being three of the brightest contributors to the boards here. And I?m sure I?m not the only one who feels that way.

 

You didn't see the thread in Comms about the issue, I take it. Of course that thread was started by the sock of a banned user, but it still went on for quite a while.

Our pay comes in the ability to randomly ban those people who piss us off. I thought we already established that.

I think you misunderstood my point and request for slack a bit. It often feels like those with whom I disagree are looking for any conceivable way in which I (or another mod) could express bias, and the moment there is something that conceivably might be biased, they jump all over us for it. It seems like they see themselves as a watchdog group, and think they have to speak out for every last issue, based completely upon their perception. At the same time, they seem to expect that the mods do the opposite, evaluate both sides in detail and then act.

This is compounded by the nature of almost everyone in the Senate, arguing over the last detail of everything. When we issue a warning in a thread, there are often a half dozen posts after it that take the thread off-topic (something that by itself is against the rules), and complain about the warning. We then have to edit those posts (especially after we say that the matter is not up for debate, because such warnings are not a matter of public debate), which makes people think that we took far more action than we did. That is one of the biggest reasons why we ask that if you have a problem with a moderator action, you PM the mod involved. The last time I gave a public warning, I didn't get a single PM about the warning in the thread (I did get a few from the Comms thread, though). On the other hand, there were several posts in the thread complaining baout it. That is a regular pattern with warnings.

I'm asking that not only you, but everyone cut us a little slack when we have to give warnings. Quite often, things are different than appearances would suggest, and none of the mods (myself included) is here to try and flex his e-muscle. Believe me, if I did, there are a lot of people who wouldn't be posting now (or ever again, for that matter). We are simply trying to do the best that we can to keep things running smoothly. We can't do that alone.

Kimball Kinnison

 

So what you're saying, Kimball, is that if you issue a warning chances are we, the posters, deserved it?

Preposterous! You know perfectly well flaming and baiting to the point where the topic sits dejectedly at the head of the table contemplating suicide is well within the ToS, and you mods are just power hungry commie-nazis trying to steal UNICEF pennies, stifle opposition, invade Iraq, control the liberal bias media and vast right wing conspiracy, stack the USSC with conservative judges, ram your liberal agenda on the family, support terrorism, deny God whilst forcing God on people, banning those who get in your way and damn your biases sir.



If it's any consolation I'd wager half or more of the people who piss and moan when you issue a warning would contest a parking ticket for parking in a disabled zone or a speeding ticket doing 2.5x the speed limit.

E_S

 

I'm just curious. Are there ANY liberal moderators here? I can't think of any. I think they might all be conservative.

 

Actually, none are conservative.

Despite hysterical pronouncements to the contrary KK and Mr44 are astonishingly moderate.

E_S

 

I think you misunderstood my point and request for slack a bit.

No, I think you took my response too literally.

Overall, you guys do a very good job. My issue was with the particular thread that we were discussing earlier and how it relates to the topic at hand. The issue was resolved, but IMO it served as an important 'reminder', again, considering the topic of this thread.

 

What happened to all the Katrina threads. They all seem to be locked. Did I miss something? Please direct to the official Katrina thread.

 

Actually, none are conservative.

Well, now I've heard everything. KK and Mr 44, not conservative? I've heard everything. Good day gents.

 

They are moderate, Bendu. It's just that the likes of me are so far to the extreme radical left that we threaten national (and JC forum) security. Hence the logical justification for allowing such comments as "Anti-American leftie terrorist-lover", while banning these radicals who use the word homophobe.

 

You'll notice I said "despite hysterical pronouncement to the contrary", meaning those who think with their heart, not their head, will see them as rightists despite what their positions actually are.

Given your cretinous comment in the terrorism thread, I would be inclined to place you in this category...

E_S

 

Does calling someone obtuse or their thoughts inane fall under this category?

 

Can you think of a more appropriate adjective?

E_S

 

dumbarse?

 

Ah, it's nice to see English rather than American English. Ass = donkey, not bum...

E_S