Believe the rules for the forum need some work.

This post contains some reflections on the latest rules post. Perhaps, should have made a posting to the earlier “The Original October Message about Behavior” (which was titled “Now a Warning from the Moderator”, though it contained comments on “tone” and “vitriolic postings” and “offending postings”, it never used the word “behavior”). As it had a tone of its own, did not think commenting upon that post would serve any useful purpose.

This latest post is rather something of a different character and, in the main, am motivated to make this posting from long-held opinions on so-called “zero-tolerance” rules-concepts-statements.

Before going on, first must state a belief in moderation and in the exercise of judgment. Second, a belief that a lighter touch and some humor helps make the world a better place.

In general, “zero tolerance” has appeared as a cover for somewhat arbitrary imposition of views and actions because the phrase allows those “applying” the concept an excuse to avoid explaining their judgment (or even using any judgment) or the imposition of punishment. No explanation is needed when the “why” question can be answered “Well, we have a zero-tolerance policy . . .” Makes things one or the other (black or white), rather than degrees in between (grey, or shades of grey).

As an aside, have heard some say that the original post (“Now a Warning. . . “) may have violated the forum’s rules. Given that, some may say the current message (“New Rules . . . “) violates the rules. Just saying.

So, if properly understanding the current message (“New Rules for Forum Behavior”), because of 3 people (“some of” them post “20-30 messages a day”), there is no longer a moderated status.

Again, if properly understanding the current message, one might look at this in terms of numbers. The word “some” is more than one. This gives, say, two of the 3 people (otherwise the word would be “all”). Then, let’s take the average of the posting rate of “20-30” (25). So, doing some math, that means 50 postings a day (taking the low end gives 40).

As having followed, and posted, over the past five years, my experience is that fifty is about the top of average postings per day for a period of time - some days there are only a dozen or so postings – and, rarely – if ever, does the number get close to a hundred postings on any given day .

Haven’t gathered any statistics on this, though a quick look at the period of the 16th to the 20th of September 2013 showed a high of 33 and a low of 21 (the same – possibly reduced – period for October has a high of 32 and a low of 7). With these numbers, it appears the math needs to be reviewed. After this, perhaps, some views could be taken.

To the “New Rules” themselves, it is not clear whether these “New Rules” are specific only to “new rules concerning rude and insulting behavior“ or to all the “the few rules that govern our Forum” (from the Discussion Forum header page), because the later section on the forum’s entry page to the discussion forum does not have a “rude and insulting behavior” rule, let alone rules.

The Discussion Forum header page does have the trinity of “1. Never make a personal attack; be respectful. Stay focused on the subject, not the participant; 2. Do not use improper language (if you have to ask, assume it is); and 3. Be tolerant of dissenting opinion. Everyone has the right to say their piece.”

Can accept “rude and insulting behavior” is a combination of elements of those previously existing three rules. As such it is an interpretation of existing rules (thus not “new”).

The “New Rules” are not rules, rather a statement of intended administrative action for violation of “the rules”. Those semantics aside, the action is, if the moderator deletes one message, the poster of the deleted message shall be unable to post for one month (“banned”), etc.

The “New Rules” appear to have no stated system for warning.

Guess there is no reason to expect one, because of the message’s “zero tolerance for anyone who violated the rules” (meaning application of administrative action for violation of rules) - actually, the original message did not say that, only something about a hammock (which some found confusing); anyway, the current message declares zero tolerance before announcing the “new rules”.

In light of this, some might say, the moderator is now a banner-in-chief. Some might even say, after reflection, a banner has less to do than a moderator.

Given language variations noted above, must return to a general dislike of zero-tolerance concepts and include this specific case.

It needs some work. - R