PPR Rules/Etiquette

Post Reply New Topic

I've checked the thread you said just now. Some of the most interesting (and sometimes entertaining) threads here could easily be crushed under the addition of rigid rules, or modification of those current. A get to know the ropes post might be sufficient. An explanation of what a debate is, what a fact is, what an opinion is, that sort of thing.

OK, throwing in my views. I think PPR is an excellent debating forum. I often stop by anyway and read posts here, always have done, but rare I post though; since anything I could add has generally been said by someone else anyway. I also want to appear impartial, so since becoming a mod I have deliberately not posted on some contentious issues here in case I needed to mod those same threads later.

I think it is important that posters are free to explore in depth the wide range of issues that are covered here. The only aspect I feel strongly about is epitomised in the WP rule that arguments should be about beliefs and opinions and that those can be thoroughly dissected and disagreed with; however, it is not acceptable to attack the poster personally or to make insults directly at them. I acknowledge that sometimes there is a grey area here where insults can be subtle, this is an area where hopefully the PPR regulars can police themselves through a certain amount of peer pressure? I'm only likely to step in if someone makes a blatant personal attack on someone else as happened the other day. Blatant attacks tend to quickly turn into flame wars and spoil an otherwise good discussion.

I am still of the opinion that a separate forum would be better where those with religious beliefs could explore their faith together in a none-adversarial atmosphere. I think there are two distinct types of religious themes lumped unhappily together into PPR: One theme is the ongoing discussions loosely centred around science versus religion and the other is perhaps Christians wanting to discuss quietly amongst themselves the meaning of a biblical verse for example, without being bashed by atheists. Short of a physical separation of the two types of themes into different forums I don't know what the solution is. I think there may be some mileage in having a sticky thread in the members forum, initially for Christians to discuss practical and theological aspects of their faith in a none-adversarial way.

Anyway, my own perspective is that PPR generally only needs a light but transparent touch by a mod. Stepping in only to put out flame wars. Passions run high in here sometimes with sensitive topics but provided people keep their comments and attacks focussed on the issues and don't attack or insult the posters themselves then a mod has little to do here.

I think PPR is a good asset to WP and I hope the open and spirited discussions here should continue with as little involvement by moderators as possible.

Tallyman, you are going to be a great moderator IMHO

Reading some of the latest, there is a rule I would add, even if it echos the TOS:

Do not use a broad brush when making negative statements. One cannot suggest that all people with pink hair (religion X, belief Z, nationality Y, or other trait W) are <insert derisive term or conclusion>.

Maybe, but you gotta admit that all white people are whiney, entitled brats with little to no respect for others.

I have seen very little in PPR that crosses a line for me. At then end of the day, I have come to the conclusion that the best apporoach in this forum is to leave it to the group to self-regulate.

It might not be a bad idea for us to come up with a more expansive description of the way we do things here and put it into a sticky at the top of the forum, but I think much of that can be summed up in a simple formula:

"Subject to the WP rules, members are free to post their opinions and should expect other members are going to do the same."

I think this is a section that should be locked off except for those granted permission to access. Kinda like an adults-only section, if that makes sense.

Dox47 here's my opinion.

the WrongPlanet developer made a decision that certain types of comments are not acceptable in the forums:

what you are advocating is an exception to that rule, because of the unique nature of PPR. but i think that as PPR is still part of WP, and should be subject to the same rules.


if an exception is made, who benefits and who is ultimately hurt? racist posters (etc.) would benefit, because they can state their opinion unfettered, and the subjects of their racism would be hurt.

if no exception is made, who would benefit and who would be hurt? all posters would benefit because they know that they are safe to simply exist on the forum without being verbally degraded because of their race, and nobody would be hurt, because there is no harm involved in keeping certain topics off-limits.


i don't think heavy moderation is the answer. but i also think that protecting the racist (etc.) commenters from moderation is the answer either. and that is what you do. you stated yourself that you advocated that a racist commenter should not suffer consequences. i don't recall your wording, but you said something along the lines of that person's comments serving the purpose of representing the extreme viewpoints. but... do you understand that racism affects real people, and it isn't just about demonstarting a philosophy or opinion? nobody should come into the forums at WP and suffer racism or other hate speech against them. nobody. the rules of the site clearly state this.

one other problem is that the way things are currently handled is that you and other regular PPR posters dogpile any dissent based on how you think that moderation should be handled. you demonstrated this when you posted a link to the moderator thread in the PPR thread i flagged. you essentially gathered a 'club' of angry posters to attack my flagging. one of them took the opportunity to attack me personally, and another has begun trying to incite me on other threads.

i could have sent a PM flagging the thread, but i did not know who was a current moderator, and i thought that fast action should be taken, given the intensely hateful message of the thread i flagged. and that moderator thread is designed for specifically that purpose, so i did nothing wrong. i did NOT post in that thread itself because i did not want to be flamed on a thread that was full of hate speech to begin with. why would i want to engage the OP in a dialogue about that? the WP rules are clear, and the rules already cover these types of threads.

you seem to be asking for the right for your 'club' to decide, via internal consensus, what threads and comments are acceptable in PPR. based on your posts on the forum, and based on your inability to see how you went wrong in regards to me, and based on your defense of at least one racist poster, i do not trust your judgement. you are not a moderator and frankly, i don't think that you have demonstrated an ability to make a fair decision on what is acceptable on WrongPlanet. from what i have been reading, about what a hard time the moderators themselves have gotten in PPR, it makes me wonder how long the 'club' has possibly been engaged in intimidating other members.

there are reasons for moderation, and some reasons are to keep threads civil, to keep threads on-topic, and to keep nastiness like racism (etc.) off the forums. debate and discussion and argument is great... racism (for example) and personal attacks are not necessary for that, and people get hurt by it. it doesn't even matter if the majority of members disagree with me - it doesn't change the actual established rules in the forum.

i do think that, if a sticky is posted with guidelines, no exceptions to the actual rules should be included.

hyperlexian, I agree with you in a lot of ways. But the problem is a lot of issues within Politics, Philosophy, and Religion DO deal with issues such as racism, homosexuality, sex/violence, and occasionally excretory function. One problem Christians "in the world" face is having to deal with outside DEMAND that we accept homosexual as good and moral practice when, as a matter of religion, this cannot be. A simple reading of the Bible will tell you that. So, for example, someone brings up the subject of "Christians should be tolerant of homosexuality because that's what God intended," I don't think a Christian should be declared a homophobe and censored for simply pointing out that such language is contradictory to what the Bible teaches. It's not right to censor someone for expressing a view that you don't like. Now, something that is blatantly hateful is a different story. Pointing out what the Bible says on an issue is not hateful, it's just quoting a fact: "The Bible says THIS." If we're going to be tolerant of one view, we have to be tolerant of ALL views, even those we disagree with, and we have to be free to disagree. If you express an opinion that I disagree with, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to express an opposing view. If I see something wrong with a statement, whether the error deals with supporting facts or evidence of a statement or the error is logical in nature, I should be able point out why that's wrong, and we should both have the opportunity to try to persuade each other to one viewpoint or another. That's the nature of political, philosophical, and religious discussions.

Being able to express controversial opinions or engage in open debate does not mean one HAS to provoke or belittle others. If I say that abortion is wrong, I have not belittled anyone, though someone might find that statement alone offensive. If you disagree with me, show why I'm wrong. Calling me a sexist pig lowlife does not demonstrate why abortion is an acceptable procedure!

yes, i absolutely agree.

I think the biggest gray area in the TOS is what is considered "offensive." That concept does vary by board here. The Haven expects the most diplomatic responses. Posts in parenting take on their own rules. In PPR the term will be loosest because of the subject matter.

Oh, phooey, this kind of nonsense could only be promoted by a white person anyway.

That being said, I actually think most posters benefit, simply because a large number of posters are going to do things that skirt the line. AngelRho already addresses the issue of homosexuality, with the Christian position he promotes easily being perceived as hate speech if expressed, so that's one group that also can be seen as losers by this, but it is also one of the major religious groups in society. Even further, what about posters who do not hate certain races or genders but who think those groups are inferior. Making the statement "blacks are inferior" seems an example of racist language, but the idea that there are racial differences is not something I seek to prevent.

Perhaps you might talk about certain expressions being ok, while others not, the issue is that the line you are drawing isn't exactly the most explicit one, but rather it is a grey-line decision. Honestly, when we start getting into grey-line decisions, I am going to side more with the view that continual explicit violation of proper behavioral norms is going to be the big issue. That being said, debate forums are not really "safe zones", but rather any forum like PPR is going to be driven by strong interests and very likely given that many of the people here have AS, odd interests and beliefs. I think the people with odd beliefs probably need more protection than people with softer skin.


So does welfare, but a poster wouldn't have a problem if he stated that "Welfare should be removed, and people on it should just get jobs or die", as such a statement, while very offensive to people on welfare is just a clear statement of social darwinist beliefs, and does not target any race, sexual orientation, or gender, nor is it an attempt to provoke or belittle members. Heck, given that one poster already posted something on how the lower classes should all die so that the upper class may live, so, I really don't see your point. It makes no difference to me to say "black/white/blue people shouldn't breed" and "poor people shouldn't breed". Both are large social groups.


Umm.... ok, but how do you think moderators are going to moderate a group that does not want to be moderated without mass bannings? I mean, with this premise, you are suggesting two beliefs that are hard to make compatible:
1) PPR should be moderated.
2) PPR responds very negatively to moderation.

If we insert a third premise: "moderation is driven by the purpose of maintaining the social stability of the forums", then it seems that the two premises actually disagree rather strongly, and that in practice, point 2 might be significant enough to make many moderation acts a bad idea.


The rules don't exist until the judgment is made. It's kind of a joke, but the issue is that your appeal to the rules as a normative force does not really make them a normative force, nor are the rules necessarily what is written down, but the rules are always what is actually enforced. This kind of position is what is believed by the legal pragmatists, a group in legal theory.... anyway, despite that odd digression, I really don't buy your points that much.

1) I don't think you really value free inquiry as much.
2) The rules you want to enforce will still have problems due to the complexity of the issues PPR deals with, that often require that grey lines be touched, and moderation is practically unworkable on the grey lines.
3) The rules you want to enforce are arbitrary, and the reasons justifying them don't really make sense, as equally bad or worse things are permissible.
4) PPR is very resistant to moderator effort anyway, so moderators could actually be more socially disruptive than something resembling the status quo.
5) Actually enforcing the rules might actually be worse than not, given that even good posters might do something that can be perceived to cross the line, and involvement might do more damage than good. (Note: in this essay by Professor Arnold Kling, the idea of a "legamoron" is brought up, which is a rule on the books that if consistently enforced does more damage than more flexible enforcement http://www.techcentralstation.com/artic ... id=102102E )


I don't even see an argument here.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying here, but I disagree with this point. I would agree that there certainly is a risk, but assuming (if there is such a thing) the moderator has a good sense of judgment that most people could trust, I say go for it.

If it were up to me, I'd find being moderator in here to be an easy job. The posts in here are NOT as awful as some are making them out to be. Sand and I disagree on a lot of things, but I always enjoy his one-liner comments. It takes getting used to, but those comments can be very valuable. Now, I'm as adamant in my beliefs as anyone here, but something I would suggest is if you verbally back someone in a corner and they still can't admit the topic has been reduced to talking in circles, don't be afraid to take the initiative to just drop it. Even I'm guilty of doing this and it might have done me some good had a moderator stepped in and told me to let it go. It's not hard to "beat" someone at their own game if you're patient enough, but creating a hostile environment is no way to enhance dialogue.

I also think it should be against the "rules" to include "Um... OK" or any variation thereof before a comment. This is a WRITTEN forum, not a spoken forum, and proper use of language should be a top priority.

Well, I am not making that assumption. Most moderators are not common posters, and a moderator who took sides in a debate could be perceived as undermining the degree to which moderators could be trusted, so the issue is that a good moderator becomes more difficult of an issue than a good moderator for some of the less dispute-driven forums. There is less concern for neutrality in other forums as there is less to be biased about in many ways.

We shouldn't have to put up with the word P-word in this context for example. Why not use n****rs instead of blacks if you want really 'frank' discussions?

Indeed. I remember the bad old days when a certain mod would start gun control threads in here, and then be joined by two other mods in harassing gun rights supporters, and me being me I'd give them no quarter on the issues and chase them out of the forum. All in good fun for me, but not exactly people I'd be comfortable taking an issue to in private, though they were awful in other ways as well.

The Haven is part of WP and has different rules, so does Member Only and Adult Issues. There is plenty of precedent for different rules in different forums, and if you notice that's exactly what the current and former mods posting in this thread are saying. Rules can be changed, Alex used a boilerplate forum rules sheet when he created the site and simply has never updated them, that's a pretty flimsy rationalization of why this forum should have the life crushed out of it.




Have you really never glanced at that little picture to the left of my posts, underneath my name? The one that shows me and my fiance at a Halloween party? Tell me I don't know about racism, go ahead, do it.

I lobbied for that poster for the same reason that I lobbied on Ruveyn's behalf (and without any communication with either of them mind you), that their posts did not violate the acceptable standards of PPR. If it hurts that much just to read an offensive opinion, then I'm afraid to say that the internet might not be the best place for you.



Here's the post that linked to your post, why don't you tell me who's name is on it: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3046859.html#3046859

Sorry that the reality doesn't fit your preferred narrative of persecution, I'm even sorrier that the Moderator Attention thread in question has been reset so that I can't demonstrate how benign this "dog piling" you keep referring to was. I didn't PM or contact anyone regarding your thread, as far as I know all the posts were spontaneous reactions to 'Keet's whistle blowing on your moderator report. If you think you're being harassed elsewhere report it, no one here is going to stand in your way.



DW_a_mom, I'm now officially annoyed with you for starting this whole "PPR Club" thing...

Wow, I'm apparantly the mouthpiece for a shadowy WP conspiracy so powerful that it can silence the mods and rule the forum with impunity...

You're right about one thing though, I'm not a a mod, but what I do have is coming up on 3 years of being on WP with most of it being in PPR; you've been here 2 months. Maybe you ought to think about that a bit before deciding that you're in any way qualified to speak to my judgment regarding this forum or to judge what is and isn't appropriate here, let alone tell the mods how to do their jobs.

More and more I'm beginning to think that this is less about protecting the sensitive members of WP from us baaaaad men down here in PPR, and more about you being upset about being contradicted in public and feeling the need to "get back" at the people who did it. Perhaps a little time is needed to consider your own motives here; mine are just to preserve my favorite forum in a form that's most amenable to to the widest field of subjects.



Rules can be changed.