DENIAL "code of conduct" development thread.

[Jeff-20]

I have faith that a bunch of grown men with 25 year old computers can come to some peaceful arrangement.

[PaulQ]

immediately breached by DigitalQuirk - nice

At the time of posting the signature had references to the cart seller being the meanest man in Canada

Yes, I see you waited a whole 5 minutes to reply after I made that post ; during which time, I was in the process of changing my signature but had not yet thought of what I would change it to. Methinks you jumped the gun just a little...

That said, while my previous signature didn't address anyone and did not constitute harassment, I was concerned that someone might think it was a jab at Eslapion, being the best Vic 20 cartridge maker in Canada.

[ral-clan]

Hi guys. I think its really important that this thread stays on topic. If we can't even establish a code of conduct without fighting then this place is scr*wed. So, if it turns into yet another flame war, I'll migrate all the off-topic messages to another thread.

It's pretty important we don't let this effort fizzle out or devolve into off topic bickering. There are already countless other threads for that.

[Pedro Lambrini]

All of the above rules are acceptable to me and would form a great basis from which to work - at least for the present.

I vote that these should be collated and posted as a sticky asap. If possible it might be a good idea to send a general message alert to all members to bring their attention to the new rules.

We need to end the fueds now before it alienates any more people... I feel, as a relatively new member, that all the stuff that's been going on has only hurt the site and it's friendly atmosphere

[Boray]

I think it would be very hard to define where to draw the line. And sometimes people feel offended even if there was no intention of that. If someone attacks your personal beliefs or opinions, you could feel like it's yourself who is being attacked, so it's hard to draw a line what is written to hurt someone or not.

How about this rule: "You are not allowed to intentionally hurt someone on the Denial forum"?

[gklinger]

Prove intent.

[PaulQ]

I think it would be very hard to define where to draw the line. And sometimes people feel offended even if there was no intention of that. If someone attacks your personal beliefs or opinions, you could feel like it's yourself who is being attacked, so it's hard to draw a line what is written to hurt someone or not.

How about this rule: "You are not allowed to intentionally hurt someone on the Denial forum"?

I believe that is covered in the anti-harassment policy, which is in place in many workplaces. This part specifically addresses your concern:

...and which that person knew or should reasonably have known would be unwelcome.

So, for example, if I posted something that was normally inoffensive but someone took offense to it, it would be up to the moderator to figure out whether or not I should have reasonably known it would have been unwelcome to that person by having each side present their case. In this capacity, a moderator would also act as a mediator, to have both people understand each others point of view.

[ral-clan]

I agree somewhat with the first point DigitalQuirk makes in the previous message, but not the second. Speaking for myself as a mediator - I really don't want to become some sort of arbitrator for fueding "couples". I come to Denial to have fun reading about the VIC-20, not to lead a therapy session.

Also, I don't the like whole idea of the code of conduct turning into some sort of beaurocratic process. Let's just keep it simple & straightforward so that anyone with an IQ of 75 or more can understand it. Something like 10 simple rules of conduct. For example:

"Posts containing insults directed towards other forum member will be removed or deleted. If you need to argue a point, do it rationally without resorting to namecalling or jabs."

Period. Deletion. No matter whether or not the insult was posted with intent.

To keep this thing managable, we pretty much have to restort to the moderators using common sense when making judgements. If it gets anymore complicated than that, it's going to be a nightmare.

[Pedro Lambrini]

I think defining the line and proving intent shouldn't be such a problem. We are, in general, mature (at least in years) and intelligent (at least academically) people. Surely decency and common sense points where the line is and what the intent is - no matter how the protagonist may try to defend their actions.

I find it rather sad that it's even come to this discussion. If my son behaved in the manner of some of the posters here I would be embarrased and ashamed and he would be chastised. The fact is, though, he wouldn't behave like that as he already knows better.

Sorry for the abrupt language but I am starting to tire of this debacle - I can only wonder what the more recently registered members think.

Again, I say just get the rules already discussed up and running and put this crap behind us and amke the place friendly once more. Please.

[vic user]

I can only wonder what the more recently registered members think.

I am sure a few have not returned because of all the anti-matter chitter-chatter.

I know if I was a newbie, I would have split pretty quick.

And that's sad, because I would have missed out on so much, it is unbelievable.

[ral-clan]

Yup. I agree. Let's not bicker over semantics or fine print. Instead, let's get a small set of simple one or two line rules hashed out and get them up ASAP.

So, can anyone throw out some one or two line rules for proposal?

Already proposed:

- Signatures cannot refer to another forum member, whether intended as an insult or not (paraphrasing Jeff here).

- Insults in messages will result in that message being deleted.

Hell...if those two were followed we'd have paradise here...any others? Hotlinking? No spamming? Message in proper forum category, etc.

[Pedro Lambrini]

^
The above rules plus MRaider's suggestions would be enough by me.

[PaulQ]

I agree somewhat with the first point DigitalQuirk makes in the previous message, but not the second. Speaking for myself as a mediator - I really don't want to become some sort of arbitrator for fueding "couples". I come to Denial to have fun reading about the VIC-20, not to lead a therapy session.

I don't think it'd be all that difficult; simply read what each side has to say, then decide. Mediating may be as simple as letting one person know that the other person didn't mean to offend them and that it won't happen again. Obviously, when it comes to feuding couples, it's often pretty clear as to who is causing something to flare up. When it's not, both are dealt with equally.

[Jeff-20]

This used to be such a friendly and supportive place. It was so unique in that way. I am shocked at the change in tone. Honestly, I would like to immediately delete the accounts of any and all members accused of being disruptive under the belief that it would somehow help, but I know that is far too severe.

I just want Denial circa 2005 again. Last year was such an awesome year with all the games, and the next few years promise to be even better. But the tone of 2005 was much better.

Denial is more like a club. I can understand a condo board or a college cirriculum committee having such elaborate rules and structures and debates. But none of the conflicts are related to the VIC 20. From this date on I would delete any post with a perceived negative tone. It is a shame that a club of adults surrounding a 25 year old computer would generate such work.

[ral-clan]

Yeah. It makes me sad that there even needs to be a "code of conduct" thread, or moderators. I still hold out hope that a really minimal conduct code that is more positive in spirit is all we'll need.