Yep, title kind of says it all really.

That said, I am curious as to what people think is the purpose behind having rules in place, or, what do you think rules provide for the community they are put in place for (in this particular instance I would look at the microcosm that is the Political forum or, as it happens, the political forums)?

It seems to me that this would be a valid topic for the feedback board and, by extension a valid and timely debate to have.

Thoughts?

I have a question for all my grandkids if they ask about rules.....

its this..

what would you say if they decided to take away all sets of traffic lights..what would happen do you think?..

in most cases.. the answer is  its chaos...

and thats what I tell them rules are.. traffic lights.... they give us all a fair share

now dont tell me you have never been fed up to the eyeballs when the lights turn red just as you get there and you give way to nothing..

do you ever try to beat the lights.....

have you even been fined for disobeying the lights..

of course we have... its human nature to break something that is an irritant....

but smart ones amongst us realise without rules.. we are a shattered broken society...

its the ones that constantly break them that find it the hardest to fit in and be happy...

treat others as you would have them treat you.

Cliff48 wrote on May 18^th, 2014 at 11:35am:




thats not the point though is it... we all break/change the rules....

the point I make is we cannot do without them...

we are all human cliffy we all have different ideas and not one person can do a thing about that....so what we do is.. we say we will all drive our cars on the leftside of the road......

now along comes the town idiot and decides he will not conform....well I think we know what will happen...

ask yourself when the rules  are manipulated...

how bad are they?? what are the consequences...

if any...

we see some that we rage up about...and eventually make enough noise things change..

but it doesnt stop the next one...

it just means those that believe in rules.. one rule fits all..then its up to those to make a lot of noise when they get broken..for the few.

its been the same since man stood upright..

rules I am talking about not laws...

cods wrote on May 18^th, 2014 at 11:47am:


So its ok if people break rules that you don't agree with?


For me ...  i just like to see consistency whether I agree or not.

Thanks all for your feedback so far.

Perhaps I was not clear when I asked about the "purpose".

Thank you Cods, in my opinion, you have at least alluded to a purpose (avoiding Chaos).

I already acknowledge and understand that rules (particularly man made rules) are generally broken or skirted at some point, however, that was not what I really asked.

I disagree with the viewpoint put by a few that rules and laws are somehow different, the only real difference would seem to be the punitive measure attached if you brake one. Laws are in effect just another form of rules....

Of course, I need to clarify, this threads intention was mainly to look at forum rules because of recent "events" to be honest. However, that said, it is probably quite apt to discuss rules/laws even more broadly, I would respectfully hope though that the intent of that discussion is not lost on Admin people.

So Rules....

What is their ultimate purpose though?

It seems to me that if we (the community) cannot come to consensus as to why we might need rules, then the setting up, implementation and enforcement will be neither appropriate, consistent or confidence building. In short, they will be nothing more than a deficit to the integrity of the community.

Further, and in part in response to PN. If rules are articulated in such a fashion that there is squirm room, loopholes or, as you seem to be suggesting degrees of severity, then, in short, the rules have been ineptly developed or articulated. Or, those implementing/enforcing them are not fully conversant with the overall meaning, or, lack the understanding to apply them equally. I realise that may be seen as an affront, however, that is not my intent.

For the main part, those who are subject to the rules actually do need them applied judiciously and consistently. Further, as the old axiom mentions, justice not only needs to be done, it also needs to be seen to be done, hence the moderation is secrecy idea  is flawed as well. I realise the intent in not naming people was to avoid having flame war type threads, clearly, those threads are present and happening. Also, by articulating when and why action has been taken, it does not have to automatically open up a debate, i.e. the "reporting" thread could be strictly for admin to use (as an example).

In short, I understand your comments as to why some rules are not seen to be implemented, however, I would respectfully suggest that this leaves the situation very open to abuse, ad hoc application and completely ignoring of breaches when it suits.

Once again, I would respectfully ask all to consider the question:

"What is the purpose behind having rules...?"

Well, thanks to those who had some input here.

Having read other threads I think I have the answer now...

No one really knows why.

I noted this quite early on after coming here and thought "early days see how it goes...."

Quite clearly, there is no insight into why we would have rules - therefore, that goes a long way to explain why there is a distinct lack of succinct clarity in those rules that are articulated in numerous places throughout the several boards. That goes a long way to explain why there are quite clear black and white rules (amongst the pile...) which are, at best, adhered to, enforced and upheld in grey (as opposed to the rule being stated as black and white).

It also clarifies now for me, why moderation is reactive and not proactive - lack of insight, understanding and commitment.

Am I being harsh?

No, not at all, if you want to have no rules and act arbitrarily with select posts and posters then be honest about it. Or review and simplify your rules at least so that they can be implemented with consistency, oh, and just prior to that seek some advice as to why groups of people doing anything need some rules - answer that first it might help your review of existing rules.

Sandpit to Cesspit

That is the journey presently being embarked on.

That has long been the problem at the other place (yes I am also a former member/survivor) it hit cesspit years ago and has never recovered.

It is easily avoided, however, that would require admin/owner having the will to avoid it - no one else can redirect the forum.

Does it matter anyway?

At the end of the day, most likely not (sorry to those people who feel some ownership/belonging here for the potential insult in that comment). It is just another little internet community amongst a Gazillion other little internet communities. So at the end of the day, just walking away is always a valid option.

The important message in that though for the Admin (I guess that is the term...) is that this means your relevance is also diminished, why? Well simply put, sensible posters who know their stuff (if there are any here) realise that the Mods are an unnecessary step is something is really wrong/illegal/defamatory/etc...

External bodies are far more appropriate, well if your complaint/query is valid at least. That would be a good litmus test I suppose, however, it would also mean that you don't run the risk of disturbing the sleep/dinner/drinking time or otherwise private life of a volunteer moderator. Particularly one who will (or won't possibly) respond to the PM that is the preferred method of moderating... (i.e. reactive).

A couple of other observations

To anyone who has the absolute stupidity to make a comment in a public forum along the lines of "why are you responding it is none of your business...."

That's a great shutdown I suppose, except, your private conversation you are conducting in a public space.

To me, that means that your comment is driven by a lack of reason and logic and, in fact, the person who apparently knows nothing has stumped you (who knows everything it seems) for a reasoned response. OR you are having a private conversation in a public forum.... Either way, super dumb comment to make in a public forum.

"Baiting" - the least acted on issue in the place.

Baiting seems almost part and parcel with un-moderated online argument...Perhaps that is because people lack a valid argument in response, or logic has trumped their beliefs (that one always smarts), or perhaps they lack the skill to articulate their counterpoint and so, get lazy.

Either way, just a behavioural heads up - if you want to reduce it, do not give multiple warnings (that just makes the warner look dumb, weak and insipid) and then attack with a scatter gun - nip it in the bud early, consistently and with even handed application. What did we just have "several" people apparently suspended? Why? Because apparently no one could see this coming and, therefore, sat on collective hands.

So....What kind of forum do you want?

That is the other question you guys might want to consider, although the board owner has been around long enough, perhaps he is already answering that very question.... With actions (or inactions) rather than words.

you could run this place effectively with three or four basic rules and consistency

TBH, I just wanted to check out the marquee function, but seriously, a few rules relating to behaviour not content and the job is done...

I appreciate the feedback Cods, however, respectfully I disagree regarding the application of the rules.

That said, I freely acknowledge the application of said rules is, in fact, part of the issue.

To be perfectly frank though, the purpose of having rules is the issue.

Evidently this seems hard to respond to and articulate (your response not withstanding) for the main part. Whilst you highlighted avoiding chaos as the reason, which in part I understand and at least do not disagree with - I would contend that the rules articulated here are naught to do with avoiding chaos.

I would respectfully suggest to all and sundry, if you can clearly articulate the purpose of your rules, then the development, implementation and application of your rules becomes a much more simple process.

Sure, on the one hand it could be seen as me having a go here, however, I would (once again, respectfully) suggest that I am endeavouring to encourage some self reflection for all about behavioural standards. Whether or not moderators/admin want to promote and support that idea, make changes or leave things pretty much to look after themselves is totally up to those individuals.

I like the traffic lights analogy too, well put. I would only add a bit further that in other examples of law and order, the outcomes are made very public, as we have seen thanks to our esteemed politicians quite recently, at times the outcome is publicly laundered even before there has been an official outcome.

Accountability is a pretty important thing to some people.

Being held to account is also pretty important to some.

Then there are those who would prefer to only hold those to account because they disagree....

Which forum (community) would you like to be a party to?

Phemanderac wrote on May 18^th, 2014 at 10:48am:


In my experience, all Political Forums have Moderators. Usually their job is to make sure that spammers and other pests are kept at bay.

Some Political Forums have Moderators who are heavy handed with the ban key, whether that is due to The Rules or not, who knows. Some Moderators are little "Hitlers". Power goes to their head!

I would suggest that some Political Forums don't actually need Moderators to moderate Members "arguments" and so forth. The Members will eventually sort themselves out and those who don't "fit in" will be ostracised and will leave of their own accord.

We are mostly Aussies here at OzPol and we all know how Aussies react ... e.g "You bastard" means "I like you" and so forth.

As an aside , when I first got the Internet in 1995, and got into the Chat scene, the message way back then was to think of a Chat Room as walking into a Bar where you don't know anyone.  Do you usually yell "hey you f-wit, what's up yours" when wandering into somewhere you don't "know" anyone? Of course not. The message was to be polite to strangers.

However, although we all are using anonymous IDs some of us have been posting along side each other for years and years and, as happens at work and elsewhere, we find some "personalities"  are annoying, irritating and downright obnoxious in some cases. THAT'S LIFE. 

As your Mother told you when you were a kid, IGNORE the people who try to bully you by calling you names and being obnoxious.  If you react they will continue.

As we are all adults here (I presume everyone is over 18) we really do NOT need Moderation.  We should be able to moderate our own behaviour and butting in to another "cat fight" between Members is a huge NO NO!  Do you butt in when you see an argument?  Of course you don't. You'd get punched in face, or worse. Stay out of squabbles between other Members. 

Threatening to be "banned" by a Moderator doesn't seem to work.  They just come back, angrier than ever.

So, getting back to The Rules. Like Real Life, Rules are there to be broken and some people will always push the envelope, as it were.   Some people are LIARS, others never tell a fib, regardless. Some people are bullies, others are holier than thou (but secretly bullies in other areas).

LIFE it happens.