Bronte: > I belong to another chat room. It's about caring for rabbits. It's a nice place, and this is the policy on flames -- enforced and taken seriously: > > FLAME POLICY > > EtherBun is an unmoderated listserve. However, because we want EtherBun to be a happy place, the list owner and the EtherBun Advisory Committee insist that there will be NO FLAMING, EVER. A flame is defined as a personally insulting or derogatory post. Strong opinions, healthy disagreement and civil discussion are welcome on EtherBun, but flaming will not be tolerated. If you write a post voicing a strong opinion about a controversial issue, please DO NOT name other EtherBun subscribers personally. To do so invites hostility and fans the flames of war, which will not be tolerated on EtherBun. Offenders will be warned by the Advisory Committee, and repeat offenses will result in the offender's being deleted from the list. > If you are ever the victim of a private flame because of something that occurred on EtherBun, please forward a copy of the flame post to [EMAIL PROTECTED] At the discretion of the EtherBun Advisory Committee, the perpetrator will be warned and/or deleted from the list of subscribers.
FFL guidelines say essntially the same thing. More concisely or compactly perhaps. The issue is the ethos and aura of enforcement. Different forums resolve this in different ways. Rick generally goes by consensus. Or does what he feels is right, and beleives others will "get it" when implemented. For example, few wanted to change to 35 posts / week limit, from 5/day, Ricks said, "lets try it for 30 days anyway. It seems to be a good idea". And now most everyone applauds the policy. It never would have happened if Rick did not take the initiative, applied common sense and perhaps intuition, and moved "ahead" of the consensus. As a leader, not a follower. My take is that while consensus is good, it rarely is achieved without experience by the participants. Though I applaud Ricks management style of seeking consensus, I suggest the experience of the 35 post change as a paradigm for management here. Try out various "common sense" solutions. See if they work for a month. After experience with the policy, then ask for a consensus. We would never have 35 posts a week if Rick had waited for a pre-consensus on that. Some things to try. 1) It is not subjective when someone blatently flames. Its obvious. Adhere to the guidelines and ban any such flaming poster for a week. Two weeks second offense. Six months after 4-5 offenses. I suggest that Yoda-Rick try this for a month. THEN see if there is a consensus then for the policy. 2) Same bans for gratuatious profanity or sexist, racist, ageist, creedist slurs. Thats clear 99% of the time (For example, sadly not everyone got the "Jane, You Ignorant Slut" satire.) 3) Same bans for trolling -- defined as "incessant posting of inflamatory material with the intent to push button and incite flames". This is clear 90% of the time, and the first offense should receive a warning. Then 1, 2,3 week bans.
