Rules Refining Discussion

[anthony]

Think before you post in this discussion. Read the thread first, understand that it IS NOT about rules applicability, think about what you want to say, then post it concisely.

Aim: To minimise and optimise forum rules from crossover with legal policy, without losing their effective purpose.

Purpose: The purpose of putting this to discussion is that members have always controlled the overall majority on forum rules. Most of what I believe can be removed, is actually covered in the legal policy already. Rules should cover the absolute bare basics, nothing more.

Current Forum Rules

1. All members are allowed their opinion, neither right nor wrong, and a person's opinion must be respected.
2. No member is to attack another member because of their opinion, or failure to accept another's opinion.
3. All members may vent, yell, rant, rave, etc, however; none of which at any time is to be directed towards another member.
4. No member has a crystal ball, so don't guess or think you know what another is thinking; ask or clarify if a response is taken the correct way.
5. Basic grammar must be used within postings. Start a sentence with a capital letter, end it with a fullstop, capitalize individual letters correctly, punctuate abbreviations correctly and break your content into readable size paragraphs with a clear space between each paragraph.
6. Text formatting must be used appropriately. The only forum for being artistic with text formatting is the Chit Chat forum.
7. Thread titles should always be descriptive of the subject matter.
8. Post within the correct forum for the topic intended. Read forum descriptions carefully.
9. Quoting of entire posts will be edited / deleted. Quote only what you are directly responding too.
10. Signatures are not allowed beyond an ending courtesy, ie. Regards, Anthony. Any signature statements, taglines, etc, not acceptable.
11. Advertising of any kind is strictly forbidden upon PTSD Forum.
12. Cite any referenced material by quoting the source.
13. Attach empirical evidence if challenging any existing knowledge. One study is not empirical.
14. Internet links posted may be deleted if found irrelevant to the site nature or topic.
15. Email addresses are not allowed within any posted content and may only be passed privately.
16. Online support unfortunately cannot be offered to people under the age of 18 as mental health is classified as medical.
17. PTSD Forum is not a crisis centre, nor an emergency outlet. Don't use it as one.
18. Suicidal posting is not acceptable and will be deleted. Suicidal ideation may be discussed.
19. Any member who lurks / uses the chat system only, and does not actively participate within the community, will be banned without warning. Chat is for participating members only.
20. Content may not be disclosed within any area less private and/or restrictive by usergroup, than the level the posted content is within.

Proposed Rules Outlook

1. DO respect opinion diversity and member/s rights to equality, ethnicity & cultural beliefs.
2. DO describe subject matter in your titles.
3. DO post within the correct subject forum for the intended topic.
4. DO use basic grammar in forum posts. Start a sentence with a capital, end it with a fullstop, and capitalize individual letters correctly, punctuate abbreviations correctly and break your content into readable size paragraphs with a clear space between each paragraph. SMS speak is not basic grammar. (Chat, profiles and other areas not a forum post, are excluded)
5. DO cite referenced material and attach empirical evidence if challenging existing knowledge. (One study is not empirical)
6. DO NOT quote entire posts. Quote only what you're directly responding too.
7. DO NOT add a signature beyond an ending courtesy, ie. Regards, Anthony.
8. DO NOT post email addresses. (Private Conversations excluded)
9. DO NOT post suicidal messages. (Ideation acceptable)
10. DO NOT copy member or private content into a less private area / share with another not privy to that content / conversation. (Staff are privy)

A vast difference when reading the rules!

Things that have been removed are either covered in the legal policy already, OR, they've been corrected by other means taken on the forum. For example, the editor now excludes text formatting issues by default, so that is no longer an issue. I don't think we need the first four points, which all say respect others and their opinion, in essence. There are anti-spamming solutions installed and so forth.

Feedback: If you believe something is wrong, missed, or otherwise, then please feel free to provide your thoughts on the subject. I will warn though, this is not a debate on forum rules and policy. It is about minimising current rules to the least ambiguous and most effective means of getting short, important, content across quickly and effectively.

 

[Nicolette]

DO use basic grammar in forum posts.

I would like to have added - SMS/text speak is not appropriate or something along those lines as there is no reason for people to abbreviate their content to such an extent as there is no character limitations and it is, in my opinion laziness.

The other is the capitalization of the word 'I' in terms of grammar which is a constant issue.

and capitalize individual letters correctly,

Maybe capitalize individual letters/words correctly?

 

[anthony]

SMS speak should have been there... and now is with basic grammar. SMS speak is just that, for texting. This forum is not texting.

 

[JustBe]

I think the new list is much more reader friendly.

 

[cherryblossom]

Just wondered if anything is needed re: advertising /self promotion / links to blogs ?

 

[anthony]

Advertising and self promotion is already covered in the legal policy.

 

[blackemerald1]

Is it worth having a acknowledgment that the rules have been read by a person when they become a member before they can move on to the Forum any further?

Something simple like a tick in the box that they have read the rules. Without the tick the member cannot proceed? Or, is that too heavy handed?

I prefer the new rules setup, much easier to read and comprehend.

 

[anthony]

A member already accepts them at registration, then a second time prior to being able to post. It blocks them from proceeding... I think there is enough.

 

[Hashi]

I like the shorter bullet list and the do/do not format. It's very easy to read.

I found the new wording for point 1 was harder to understand. I'm afraid I'm not sure what's meant by member/s rights to equality - what would be an example of not respecting this? I agree that the original 4 points can be condensed. I wondered if some of the wording could be kept, though. Maybe something like: "Do respect other members and their opinions"?

 

[Hashi]

I've also been wondering recently about not pushing religious views. I know it's not acceptable to do this but it doesn't seem to be listed in the rules.

 

[anthony]

Religious views does not need be a rule, as it happens little and the legal policy covers direction by staff and we can define as needed for specific cases.

 

[anni]

It doesn't seem to be hugely different, although I see a little difficulty if someone has to fit subject matter in thread titles across the board? It's not a complaint, I'm just pointing out that you guys could end up with some awfully long thread titles depending on what a member might be talking about.