"These are the rules that already exist. If conversations haven't hitherto been shut down left and right, then why raise the specter of stifled debate?"

+1

The rules didn't already exist. Just because you had them noted or thought out in some behind-the-scenes black-book doesn't mean they were in place or public knowledge.

I mean, it's kind of annoying when things are shady and hidden, or unknown.

Besides, we're all liberally minded persons.

To Jamiet and Chaqa

The silencing of PM's I would gander is to prevent silenced members from stirring the pot up more in their exhile. Something I recall YJ, Draug and many others to have done in the past. The silence is to prevent their word from getting to the forum, which has easily been worked around in the past

"As a second point, can we now confirm that no-one will be silenced for more than 48 hours? 48 hour silences will then be the norm, and if that doesn't work, the next stage is a ban? Just making sure we're clear."

Yes, and to be clear it's not a progression, for consecutive infractions, of warning -> 48hr silence -> ban. The 48hr silence is the standard sanction for infractions after a warning. Bans are only meted out in select circumstances, and we try to avoid banning as much as possible.

I know I'm going to be called out for posting after I've left, but whatever.

I welcome the owner's and mods' desire to codify the rules. actually, I'm not sure if 'desire' is the right word judging by the preamble.

Rule 1 - don't make threats seems unnecessary. Anything that is illegal shouldn't be done.

Rule 2 - reference to personal info rule is too vague.

Can I say 'older members like [REDACTED] and I...'
Can I refer to having met [REDACTED] at a face-to-face tourney?
Can I acknowledge that [REDACTED] is an American or [REDACTED] is gay or [REDACTED] is female? Can others refer to the fact I play poker?

Rule 3 - insulting or being abusive to groups is going to be a nightmare to police. Can I now call Hamas terrorists or the Israeli govt warmongers? Could I mock followers of astrology but not followers of Christianity? Can I mock the deceased Jimmy Saville but not make a joke about, say, the victims of a serial killer. Will libtard, moron, etc be banned? Can I can footballers a bunch of pansies or suggest that estate agents are crooks? Should I refrain from mentioning bankers altogether?

Rule 4 - fair enough

Rule 5 - fair enough.

Appeals to common sense generally fail because our values and beliefs are not commonly shared and a few seem to have no sense.

I'm not a great admirer that a person who has been warned has to make their case only via email. Sometimes owners/mods can become blinkered and exposing a decision to debate can be useful.

One of the problems I see with these rules is that they could mean more work for the mods. People do get passionate about things like Israel. If Obi calls Hamas terrorists and Putin appeals to mods for a ruling, then what? Does Obi get silenced? What has been achieved?

I think a reminder about staying within the law should be issued. Apart from that I don't see a need to try and restrict what is said.

Amusingly, when I posted above at diprepublic, 'libtard' is automatically replaced by "liberally minded person" - If you want a site where such words can't be used, try there.

"Amusingly, when I posted above at diprepublic, 'libtard' is automatically replaced by "liberally minded person" - If you want a site where such words can't be used, try there."

http://i.imgur.com/RZM33.gif

Nice to have you back Maniac ;-)

(Thought someone ought to say it)

pls come back maniac

You can't do emoticons and that would everyones posts seem more friendly because we all love emoticons ..... the new improved site can do them :-)

"insulting or being abusive to groups is going to be a nightmare to police. Can I now call Hamas terrorists or the Israeli govt warmongers? Could I mock followers of astrology but not followers of Christianity? Can I mock the deceased Jimmy Saville but not make a joke about, say, the victims of a serial killer. Will libtard, moron, etc be banned? Can I can footballers a bunch of pansies or suggest that estate agents are crooks? Should I refrain from mentioning bankers altogether?"

Mock =/= abuse

Clear difference between "how many Jews can you fit in a Volkswagen?" vs. "Jews are the scum of the earth."

Congratulations, mods/admins. You just invited people to waste countless hours more of your time. First comes the picking apart of the rules. Then comes people pushing the boundaries in various threads as test cases. Then comes another round of complaints of inconsistent application of the rules based on the test cases. Then come amended rules to appease the complainers. Repeat cycle.

This was unnecessary. Some people are just going to complain whatever you do. I think the vast majority of users can handle a "be reasonable" standard.

But hey, it's your time being wasted, so party on.

I agree with Hanged. Publish the rules (which all seem great and reasonable) then enforce them as you see fit.
If people bitch, just shrug your shoulders and ignore them. Its your site, you have the right to run it as you see fit.

@THM, the biggest reason it was needed was so that new members know the few things we don't allow. It shouldn't just be word of mouth for a new member to find out that we don't allow something.

Also make sure they know they can't talk about [REDACTED].

Anyway, zultar and 2WL already waste their lives away on this forum whoring for +1s, so all we did was make them a little more productive while they waste their lives away.

http://i.imgur.com/iVCpwgq.jpg

@jmo: Nah. For years, there's been a webdiplomacy rulebook in the Help section that's perfectly adequate for reasonable people. A reasonable new user who ignorantly commits a minor infraction, then is warned or temporarily silenced will respond with "oops sorry, I didn't know" and not transgress again. This isn't about educating new users. It's about attempting to mollify the same people who are dissecting the newly posted rules, which is why it's a waste of time because they will never be satisfied.

http://i.imgur.com/QTVJfZI.gif

http://diprepublic.iftopic.com/ the last home of free speech

Shamelessly promoted by "liberally minded persons."

I think, THM, that you're under the impression that I am personally going to be more involved in forum moderation. To a certain extent that is true, but fundamentally there aren't going to be any real noticeable changes on the forum, only now when there is a conflict over a mod decision we can now point to these rules and say "please see here".

After discussing with Mapleleaf, he has agreed with the site rules and agreed to follow them. He seemed very sincere and reasonable, and I believed him. As a gesture of goodwill, he has been unsilenced.

The same offer was made to krellin and he basically told me no. He then mocked me and told me that this would make me look weak, that he didn't want any leniency, that I was a fool to offer it, and so forth. So, as a result, his silence will continue.

+1 krellz

+1 mapleleaf

Krellin has some real character. Unlike that upstart SYnapse character. Can you believe he [REDACTED] and then took his fist and shoved it up [REDACTED]? Outrageous!

"Even Krellin is no match for the mods.
And how many battalions does the mod command?
Do not mock the mods."

I thought Synapse left...

Meh. What a sweet dream that was.

#krellin4martyr2014