Rules discussion
Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 8:33 am
I've put up a set of forum rules here. Please let us know what you think. This list is still under construction, and your feedback would be invaluable.
This will be hard, as I am bound to miss things. Here's a rule of thumb: Are you able to say it in front of a police officer? If so, it's a safe topic. If not - think again. If you are willing to make me a list of things that are illegal to discuss, I will add it to the list. But it can never be exhaustive, as laws change all the time. And I don't know each one myself.Dragonwolf Lord wrote:Once again Valerion thank you for your help.
I feel that the rules of the site need to be discussed further. Explaining in more detail of what should or should not be said in the forums. What you said in http://forum.zafur.co.za/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2563 made lots of sense in order to keep peace, but if the community doesn't know what they can or can't say, eg illicit use of narcotics, then they won't know that they can't say it and then get even more angry, if say, it was deleted.
I think a lovely solution would be a better defined 'Terms and Conditions' for the site for I feel and hear that people are leaving and if that happens in great number, I fear it will be a dark day for lots of us.
This section should probably clarify whether multiple accounts falls under this. More on that below. Also this should probably mention the annual Halloween event.User names
- We do not allow users to change their own user name. If you would like to change your user name you must ask an administrator.
Why not animated? Our avatars can be. I've seen one or two "transgressors" and it's really not that bothersome if it is discreet. Nobody uses those obnoxiously sparkly 1990's gifs any more.Signatures
- No embedded videos allowed
- Images are limited to 100 pixels high by 200 pixels wide
- Images must be static, and not animated
V&S also falls under members-only.Personal contact details
Please do not post your email address or phone number in a forum that are publicly accessible. This is intended to cut down on spam harvesting.
Forums that are accessible only by members may contain contact details. This includes:
- Regionals
- The yiffy forum
Mentioning this is redundant as it is enforced by the available BBCode. Also LiveLeak embedding has since been removed because nobody uses it.Embedded videos
- YouTube videos may be embedded, using the provided tags
- LiveLeak videos may be embedded, using the provided tags
- No embedded video may autostart, even just to buffer itself. User interaction is required to start it
I suggest an additional rule to disallow images that break the forum width. Alternatively, some code that automatically resizes such images (or converts them to attachments) would be a much less restricting option.Embedded images
- Please ensure your image is available to all forum users, whether they are logging into the image hosting site or not
- Please do not remove images from the image hosting service one you embedded it in your post, and ensure it does not auto-expire
- You may also upload images directly into the forum
The MPAA links are broken.
Although it is generally a good idea to discourage discussion on such topics to avoid possible incrimination and/or association, I see no reason why a blanket ban that also covers academic debate is necessary. Case in point: everybody agrees that murder is wrong, yet discussing murder cases or the concept itself (this does not include death threats obviously) is neither taboo nor forbidden.Legality
Please do not make posts discussing subjects that are illegal in either SA or Switzerland (where the server is hosted. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Bestiality
- Copyright infringement
This should be right up at the top. However, although I agree with this on principle, it seems a bit overkill. I know this rule was created because of a handful of isolated cases, but multiple accounts are generally pretty easy to spot, and not much of a threat anyway. I can't come up with a less strict alternative though, so consider this just a comment.Multiple accounts and Banning
- You are not allowed to have more than one account on the server, unless you have discussed this with the Admins and received permission for this. Strict rules will apply to such cases, as discussed with the Admins.
- Having multiple accounts will most likely get all of them banned.
- If you are banned (temporarily or permanently), you are not allowed to create a subsequent account unless you have permission from the Admins. Ban evasion will not be tolerated.
I couldn't agree more, and this definitely does need mentioning.Venting and support section
Due to the nature of this sub forum, trolling posts will not be tolerated. This area is for people to discuss their problems and receive support from the forum. Those that abuse access to this part of the forum will be temporarily, or permanently, denied access to it depending on the severity of the infraction.
Halloween is a special event and the change of rules is announced each year. In any case, I only make it possible to change your own name during that period so there's no need to talk about exceptions.Leeward wrote:This section should probably clarify whether multiple accounts falls under this. More on that below. Also this should probably mention the annual Halloween event.
We can probably do that. It's both a question of keeping things appropriate and space limitations. But I think the forum has plenty of spare space and most people are probably on high speed connections now.Leeward wrote:Why not animated? Our avatars can be. I've seen one or two "transgressors" and it's really not that bothersome if it is discreet. Nobody uses those obnoxiously sparkly 1990's gifs any more.
:O People wanting stricter rules! I'm in favour of keeping things to forum width but I don't know if anyone has the time or skill to fix that here. At the moment I remove images that are too wide if they are in threads where it would be too annoying, like WAYDN. And I make exceptions for photo threads like Adagio has.Leeward wrote:I suggest an additional rule to disallow images that break the forum width. Alternatively, some code that automatically resizes such images (or converts them to attachments) would be a much less restricting option.
The reasoning there was two-fold. Firstly, and experience seems to bear it out, people are not capable of discussing issues without admitting their own involvement, which puts the forum in a bad place. Second, people get so worked up that discussion becomes impossible. I would like more discussion available but then it might be necessary to be stricter, so temp-bans with thread locks might come into play then.Leeward wrote:Although it is generally a good idea to discourage discussion on such topics to avoid possible incrimination and/or association, I see no reason why a blanket ban that also covers academic debate is necessary. Case in point: everybody agrees that murder is wrong, yet discussing murder cases or the concept itself (this does not include death threats obviously) is neither taboo nor forbidden.
Fair enough, that's more of a structural issue than an administrative one. Still, a guideline would spare you the trouble.Rakuen Growlithe wrote::O People wanting stricter rules! I'm in favour of keeping things to forum width but I don't know if anyone has the time or skill to fix that here. At the moment I remove images that are too wide if they are in threads where it would be too annoying, like WAYDN. And I make exceptions for photo threads like Adagio has.
Discussing illegal activity is not in itself illegal. People make assumptions regardless of what we say because it is a well-known "fact" that all furries are perverts; no amount of irreproachability on our part will change that image in the short term, and maintaining a good reputation on such a small scale will not make a difference in the long term.Rakuen Growlithe wrote:Firstly, and experience seems to bear it out, people are not capable of discussing issues without admitting their own involvement, which puts the forum in a bad place.
Perhaps temp-bans should be a bit more commonplace then, as opposed to letting things get out of hand and locking a thread once the damage is done, which also end the debate on a sour note and inhibits further discussion.Rakuen Growlithe wrote:Second, people get so worked up that discussion becomes impossible. I would like more discussion available but then it might be necessary to be stricter, so temp-bans with thread locks might come into play then.
To implement this approach, I think we are going to need more than 2 active global moderators, so that the forum is monitored frequently enough to catch such a situation before it snowballs.Leeward wrote:Perhaps temp-bans should be a bit more commonplace then, as opposed to letting things get out of hand and locking a thread once the damage is done, which also end the debate on a sour note and inhibits further discussion.
I think you might have misunderstood me there. This has nothing to do with reputation or the image of the fandom. Discussions about illegal activity are not illegal but if a fur is discussing an illegal activity and then says that they do that activity then the forum is in a difficult legal situation because we should report that. This is the same issue that causes trouble on furry art sites; regardless of our views on certain topics we still have legal obligations.Leeward wrote:Discussing illegal activity is not in itself illegal. People make assumptions regardless of what we say because it is a well-known "fact" that all furries are perverts; no amount of irreproachability on our part will change that image in the short term, and maintaining a good reputation on such a small scale will not make a difference in the long term.
I would wait and see how necessary that is. The times that moderator intervention are needed are usually spaced quite far apart.Leeward wrote:To implement this approach, I think we are going to need more than 2 active global moderators, so that the forum is monitored frequently enough to catch such a situation before it snowballs.
Oh yes, another suggestion I forgot about. I propose a clause on tolerance towards all (regardless of age, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, sexuality, belief system, etc.), with specific mention of hate speech and propaganda.
Actually, no. The only crime you are legally obliged to report is child pornography. That is, assuming knowledge but not complicity to said crime.Rakuen Growlithe wrote:if a fur is discussing an illegal activity and then says that they do that activity then the forum is in a difficult legal situation because we should report that.
Hate speech and propaganda both have very clear, objective definitions. I don't want to reduce freedom of expression any more than you do, but this is on a level far beyond a mere difference in opinion.Rakuen Growlithe wrote:For the second part, it doesn't match with your previous suggestions to expand free speech. Hate speech and propaganda very much depend on someone's perspective. I have no interest in forbidding people from expressing their opinions on subjects just because they disagree with them or in promoting their own causes in appropriate places.
I'd need a proper source for such a claim. However even if the forum is safe then we also need to think of our users. Even if we don't have to report a crime, other forum users could report such a crime, particularly if they already disagree with the activity or have an animus against the other person.Leeward wrote:Actually, no. The only crime you are legally obliged to report is child pornography. That is, assuming knowledge but not complicity to said crime.
Hate speech and propaganda both have very clear, objective definitions. I don't want to reduce freedom of expression any more than you do, but this is on a level far beyond a mere difference in opinion.
I'll ask my bf, he'll know where to find official documentation. I can already amend my statement with regard to the exceptions: sexual abuse of children and the mentally disabled (top of page 2 of this Act), as well as corruption, theft, fraud, extortion, forgery, and uttering of a forged document (SAPS summary of Section 34 of the PCCAA).Rakuen Growlithe wrote:I'd need a proper source for such a claim.
That would not be the forum's fault. That is voluntary self-incrimination, which is a really stupid thing to do in public and/or in the presence of someone who doesn't like you and/or would report it.Rakuen Growlithe wrote:other forum users could report such a crime, particularly if they already disagree with the activity or have an animus against the other person.
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 - Chapter 2: Bill of Rights - Section 16: Freedom of Expression - Subsection 2Rakuen Growlithe wrote:Which definitions are those? If we did have such a rule then it would need to be very carefully written.
I never said the law was absolute, nor that freedom of expression implies no consequences. I merely pointed out that our Constitution (one of the most recent and progressive in the world, I might add) is more strict with regard to freedom of expression than the forum rules.Valerion wrote:No law is absolute, not even the Constitution. Freedom of speech traditionally are very limited. The government may not restrict my speech, but if I tell people how bad a company I work for, I get fired. Also, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
I am a bit confused here. I'm not talking about illegal content, I'm talking about discussions concerning illegal activities. Indication of personal involvement is entirely optional, and at one's own risk (obviously). This puts nobody in danger of prosecution, because a mere confession to a crime without further proof is not evidence enough, and nobody has a legal obligation to report a crime (with the exceptions mentioned above). And as Inpw said, it will never hold up in court.Valerion wrote:I will not change the rules on illegal content, unless you can give me a legal opinion that I am being wrong, in which case I will seriously consider shutting the forum down. The reason for that is to shield the forum members, to shield the forum admins and to shield the existence of the forum and to shield the fandom.
And who exactly is going to bother digging up dirt on an obscure fandom, which already has a bad reputation, in a country where it is virtually unheard of? Someone with a vendetta that bad is probably batshit enough to not be a credible source anyway.Valerion wrote:The fandom does NOT need another bestiality discussion to enter the mainstream media. They already believe we are sexual deviants, no need to give them ammunition to use out of context.
I suspect that would probably fall under the exceptions, in which case they must be excluded in the rule as well. If it doesn't, then I reiterate that nobody, not even the admins, are either accessories or obliged to report it (nor will they be at fault for neglecting to do so).Valerion wrote:There was an occasion where a serious criminal act was brought onto the forum. At the time I got legal advice and that was "rather keep it off the forum. It's WAY safer for you and everyone else."
I for one actually enjoy being able to openly criticize other people's belief systems on this forum, and I would prefer it if other people are free to voice their criticisms on say, sexuality. We're forced to bite our tongues enough as is in our work places.Leeward wrote:Oh yes, another suggestion I forgot about. I propose a clause on tolerance towards all (regardless of age, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, sexuality, belief system, etc.), with specific mention of hate speech and propaganda.
This is a valid point that is being made. The issue I guess that stands is, where does one draw the line. On the podcast we spoke to Green Reaper on a similar case. We can't or shouldn't be held liable for someone else's wrongdoing but opinions do matter.Valerion wrote:There was an occasion where a serious criminal act was brought onto the forum. At the time I got legal advice and that was "rather keep it off the forum. It's WAY safer for you and everyone else."
1.Tocs wrote:I'm just throwing suggestions out there, I do not even know if they are viable themselves, but who knows, may be good, may not be.
That is precisely my point. If the mods tolerate hypothetical, non-incriminating discussions about illegal activities, why not simply forbid self-incrimination for any crime, or more specifically a crime that could land one in jail? Making a rule that is inconsistently applied is just as bad as (if not worse than) having no rule at all.Helios_phi wrote:was halted cause it became incriminating