Damn, that's how all my savings is kept.

But how much for the NFT of a picture of the document?

Damn, I hadn't thought about that. Great idea. I can make it a picture of me holding the rules which will make it even more valuable. I think it will be a while for those though. Im afraid I don't easily fit into my superman, cowboy and astronaut outfits right now. But then again, super tight clothes is actually a good look for me, so...

I have posted the new guidelines in the guidelines thread. I decided to take a different approach. Rather than emphasize all the things you can't do, in excruciating detail, and try and cover every possible hypothetical, I chose to focus on the the things we can do, in a positive manner, to make the forum welcoming and enjoyable. In the end, it is up to each of us to embrace the positive vision of what this forum should be, and act and post accordingly rather than continue to constantly test the system to see how far one can go before breaking the rules enough to draw discipline.

So I am asking each of you to take a look at how you have been posting previously, and assess if there are things you can modify to support our objectives without losing your ability to fully express your opinions. I think you will find that being nice in no way inhibits getting a point across. And when everyone is nice, the natural tendency for people to put their mental shields up, stop listening, and focus on defending themselves and counterattacking will fade away. So in fact, it becomes easier to communicate a point when the other person doesn't feel under attack.

Take a look at the guidelines; give them a try; then, provide feedback and I will adjust as necessary. But what I don't want to do now is another round of hypotheticals. If you aren't sure about something, just post what you think is a good faith post. If there are any issues or unclear areas, we will resolve them as they come up. But I don't want to have the majority of the posting in this forum to be in the mod thread over imagined problems. Go forth into the real threads and post away.

Thanks for everyones support during this transition. I really appreciate it.

Banning a long time poster without an explanation and then deleting any posts in reference to it is quite ahem Orwellian? Or Stalinist?

You have made it clear that you prioritize quality of life over civil liberties, so thumbs up from you I guess?

Try reading the thread where that topic is addressed fully. You're late to the party.

There is a thread about that (other than this one)? Could you direct me to it?

It's this thread.

Is it ok to quote this now (even though it's not far away) just to avoid these current questions from growing?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking me about. Could you rephrase it pls?
Thanks

I will probably say more later if I can get a break, but I have one specific suggestion off the top. Here:
I think you should explicitly enumerate homophobic, transphobic, and sexist at minimum in your list of two examples. I think from some much earlier comments ITT you probably do intend that to be thought of as in the "etc", but I think explicit enumeration is quite important for sending a clear signal both to potential agitators in these lines that it won't be tolerated as well as to marginalized communities that they are welcome here.

These are pretty broad descriptions.
Would you consider someone against gay marriage to be homophobic?

Well, "racist" is also broad but in the guidelines. The category was "extremist views outside of mainstream will not be allowed". So while I think someone against gay marriage is homophobic, that isn't the type of homophobia I would expect to be banned given that it isn't a view far outside of the mainstream and something like 30% still oppose it. My claim here is that homophobia etc should be in the same enumerated category as racism.

A comment about guidelines, standards, and enforcement in general. The is a saying in organization management and leadership theory:

"Your standards are what you allow to occur around you"

It means that regardless of what is written in policy letters or SOPs, your true standard is what actually happens in the office, unit, etc. For example, if your policy says "Everyone must be at work by 9am" but people continue to roll in until 10am without consequences, then your actual standard is 10am, despite what the policy says.

We have twoplustwo rules and guidelines that every poster, in every forum must follow in order to participate in the forums. Our forum has guidelines that provide some more specific examples of types of things that are considered violations of the site-wide rules. I recognize that in the past, for a variety of reasons, enforcement of certain actions that violated forum policies may have been intermittent. And during my transition period, where I was assessing the situation and gathering input from members, I said that there would be a bit of a grace period for the enforcement of certain rules.

Now, with the posting of the revised guidelines, that transition period is over, as is the grace period for rules violations. As the saying states, it's meaningless to say on paper that personal attacks, trolling and other things are not allowed if in fact there are no consequences for those who violate the rules. As I outlined in the rules post, there is a graduated process for disciplinary action. My goal is to get users to voluntarily meet our standards so our forum will have the desired atmosphere and culture. I would hope that I would never have to get to the point of needing to ban anyone.

But there is another saying:

"Organizations will continue to act as they always have until forced to do otherwise".

Despite policy changes, some peoples' behavioral "muscle memory" kicks in and they continue to behave as they did before the changes. We may have some members who are used to acting in certain ways that violate the guidelines and so continue to act that way. If necessary I will use appropriate disciplinary action to try and help adjust the behavior. But I very much prefer to not get to that point.

So I'm asking each of you before you hit post, to just check to see if you are responding by "muscle memory" or are you following our guidelines.

Thanks

Good points from both of you. I will develop clarifying wording and add it later today. Thanks

they are the same thing in general. I prioritize civil liberties of individuals over those of corporate cartels and oligarchs.

well right, I dont think that is sufficient explanation.

OK, so you don't agree with the policy that I am not going to explain the details of every users' ban to the public at large. Noted. But for the reasons I discussed above, that's the policy.

Thanks for doing all this browser. I agree with uke's point but overall it looks great.

Changes made to guidelines.

If by "homophobic", you mean posts that express hatred toward homosexuals, then that should indeed be banned.

But if " homophobic" includes folks who believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and bad for the homosexuals themselves, that should be allowed imo.

The idea that anything is "sinful" sounds like something for the religion forum, not politics.

Personally, sinful is a term without any meaning to me, and I don't think it has any meaning outside of a religious context.

For example, should I be fired or somehow penalized by an employer who insists I wear a "Pride" decal on my work boots and I politely decline to do so

Of course not. I don't see how that relates to believing homosexuality is sinful or bad for anyone though. I don't believe either of those is true, but I would also object to being required (or even asked) to wear a pride flag.