Community Guidelines Discussion

09-21-2006, 04:15 PM

I appreciate having the guidelines posted. I am more than a little surprised to see:

* All administrative issues

As one of the forbidden topics.

I will delete all my posts and would appreciate you removing my membership tomorrow so I have time to delete my posts tonight. I consider these restrictions to give the moderators far more authority than BT1 moderators.

This forum has permitted bashing people who are not members by name and bashing other forums, but then stops a thread where no one was attacked or hostile so it can be reviewed???????

And we have can be banned for discussing administrative issues? So -- its okay to bash moderators and other forums, but not to discuss the administration of this one???????

Sorry, I have a sense of fair play.

DocJohn · 09-21-2006, 04:37 PM

Two things to be real clear about--

1. NOBODY GETS BANNED FOR VIOLATING A GUIDELINE ONCE. Nobody. Ever. We're not trigger-happy on the banning or suspensions. You will get a PM. You do it again, you'll probably just get another PM (depends on the circumstances and such). Do it a third time, yes, we're going to start getting a little annoyed and start talking about a suspension for a day or something.

2. Not sure what the point about talking about administrative issues in public serves. We administer the forums private, mostly through PMs to individual members. PMs are, to me, like email -- you don't share them with others unless you have permission.

The point of this guideline is that we don't want to get into long, drawn-out discussions for every little administrative action. I don't appreciate constant second-guessing of decisions (as, I suspect, most people don't), and since I can't predict how much second-guessing there will be (although I have a sense of it already), it's best to just make it a simple constant.

The best part about all of this? THE GUIDELINES ARE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION!

Make a case for why this guideline shouldn't be there, and I'm happy to listen.

Hence, this thread.

Thanks,
John

09-21-2006, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocJohn

Two things to be real clear about--

1. NOBODY GETS BANNED FOR VIOLATING A GUIDELINE ONCE. Nobody. Ever. We're not trigger-happy on the banning or suspensions. You will get a PM. You do it again, you'll probably just get another PM (depends on the circumstances and such). Do it a third time, yes, we're going to start getting a little annoyed and start talking about a suspension for a day or something.

since the guidelines don't say this, how would anyone know?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocJohn

2. Not sure what the point about talking about administrative issues in public serves. We administer the forums private, mostly through PMs to individual members. PMs are, to me, like email -- you don't share them with others unless you have permission.

The point of this guideline is that we don't want to get into long, drawn-out discussions for every little administrative action. I don't appreciate constant second-guessing of decisions (as, I suspect, most people don't), and since I can't predict how much second-guessing there will be (although I have a sense of it already), it's best to just make it a simple constant.

I totally agree - but then why is second guessing decisions made on other forums allowed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocJohn

The best part about all of this? THE GUIDELINES ARE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION!

Make a case for why this guideline shouldn't be there, and I'm happy to listen.

Hence, this thread.

Thanks,
John

I have already posted my objection to the ability of moderators to just end threads which are neither hostile, abusive, or containing personal attacks.

I believe if one is going to belong to a forum they should abide by the TOS, and the ability of moderators to just do that isn't something I am comfortable with.

Hence, my request to have my membership deleted. I have deleted all posts that I can except in this thread. The others are in threads which have been locked. Please delete my membership and those threads.

At the time those posts were made, locking threads wasn't done or permitted, and I would rather not have those posts remaining if I am not a member.

Thank you for your efforts. I think many people will be quite happy with the TOS you have outlined. I am just not one of them - and I think one should be willing to abide by the rules in order to be a member.

DocJohn · 09-21-2006, 04:57 PM

Understood and I appreciate your feedback.

Thelma · 09-21-2006, 05:15 PM

Does this not sound more accurate

The purpose of our Community is simple -- it's devoted to support for the neurological and mental health of all of our membes as well as any related health issues. In that veinof support you should endeavor to be civil and treat others as you expect to be treated

than this

Quote:

The purpose of our Community is simple -- it's devoted to support for neurological health, mental health and related health issues. In that vein, you should be civil and treat others as you expect to be treated

the followig statement needs to be elaborated upon to include your current changes as to this forum being included

such as

Soliciting others to join comparable health communities.

Quote:

Soliciting others to join another online mental health community

Then again that is such an overbearing statement of almost ownership of an individual that maybe should be eliminated

Rocking4Epilepsy · 09-21-2006, 05:22 PM

In MY opinion if a mod is rude to a member or fellow mod YES if you see this a PM should be sent to either Kimmy or Doc.
Just because we are mods doesn't give us any special treatment and we need to obide by the same rules. We are still members too

Hugs

mrsD · 09-21-2006, 05:49 PM

Many of us posted in the past using the guidelines from OBT...

Which were, if you sited and quoted the author you could post copyrighted
materials. Many of us who are more medically oriented did this alot.

In your guidelines:

Quote:

Copyrighted materials that you do not own the rights to

For example, I have a membership to a great science magazine called
Science News. www.sciencenews.org

Right on their articles is a permission to "email this to a friend" statement.
When I post copies for people, I quote the link, and "quote" the article.

Using copyrighited materials with the INTENT of making them your own words,
does infringe on copywrite,esp to make $$.. But quoting, and using "fair use" ....
Is that allowable here? I am unclear and confused.
example:
http://www.piercelaw.edu/tfield/copynet.htm

trekker · 09-21-2006, 05:11 PM

DocJohn

I have read the guidelines and they appear to cover the concerns I've had about getting involved with this site. I am also a member of BT1 but didn't get as involved as I have been on this site. I do have one question and it involves "triggers". I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could someone explain it to me and also where do you get the trigger icon?

snoozie · 09-21-2006, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trekker

DocJohn

I have read the guidelines and they appear to cover the concerns I've had about getting involved with this site. I am also a member of BT1 but didn't get as involved as I have been on this site. I do have one question and it involves "triggers". I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could someone explain it to me and also where do you get the trigger icon?

I also would like some more information about "trigger" I had no idea that certain topics or pictures of food could be a trigger. I am learning here too. I can't find the red X either. I would never want something I may post to cause someone else any problem. Thanks, Sue