Rules: version 2

[Bill3000]

It can lead to feelings of elitism if certain posters get praised above the rest of the forum.

That seems more of a description than a justification. First off, what do you mean by elitism? It clearly doesn't refer to the traditional definition of power being in the hands in the few, the few deserving this power as they have desirable quality traits, because that elitism is perfectly legitimate and in place in the forum with the existence of moderators. So what do you mean by this, then? Why is this an undesirable trait in the forum, and why is it desirable for the forum to be "egalitarian"? What genuinely negative aspects would occur if this elitism was not prevented? Why would a community which does not try to prohibit this elitism be inferior to one which does? Why isn't this contradictory to praising of talent in the Civilization-relevant forums? Or relevant to the OT, contradictory to the existence of the "Ask a..." threads? And finally, what makes you think you can genuinely stop it?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I think about the $*#(#%!!!! issue, it should be modified to say Not to direct it to other members (or maybe people in general). It makes more sense than saying not to use it with other words.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

"Feelings of elitism", rather than elitism itself, means posters either feeling that they are not as valued because they are not as popular, or trying to become so. We don't want things turning into a popularity contest.

 

[Virote_Considon]

So I guess this forum now shuns the age old proverb "if you don't have anything nice, don't say it" for the preferred "if you have something to say, don't say it"...

 

[JollyRoger]

We don't want things turning into a popularity contest.

That ship sailed long ago.

 

[Shadowbound]

You would be more successful just prohibiting negative threads about forum members. It is much easier to enforce, less intrusive, and less likely to be over-zealously misinterpreted.

 

[Maniacal]

"Feelings of elitism", rather than elitism itself, means posters either feeling that they are not as valued because they are not as popular, or trying to become so. We don't want things turning into a popularity contest.

So either everyone has to be happy, or no one can be happy. This seems too vague to practically enforce consistently.

There is a lot of praise for Kael (spelling?) who made/led the Fall From Heaven mods, I guess we shouldn't praise him for doing a good job in case someone who hasn't made as good of a mod feels bummed out.

 

[Bill3000]

"Feelings of elitism", rather than elitism itself, means posters either feeling that they are not as valued because they are not as popular, or trying to become so. We don't want things turning into a popularity contest.

So something that has absolutely nothing to do with any remote sense of any meaning of the word elitism? I mean elitism tends to at least imply an idea of people believing they are better than others, not about people who think that they are worse than others because they haven't been verbally complimented by others. That would be, say, "depression" or "learned helplessness."

If someone is mentally disturbed enough such that they are hurt by people complimenting each other, then they probably shouldn't be on the internet to begin with. There is forum precedent for this type of person being banned from the forum for precisely this reason.

 

[Elrohir]

"Feelings of elitism", rather than elitism itself, means posters either feeling that they are not as valued because they are not as popular, or trying to become so. We don't want things turning into a popularity contest.

There seems to be some confusion here -- does this refer solely to entire threads ("Topic: DAX IS TEH HISTORY GOD"), or to posts, or sections of posts ("By the way Plot, excellent answer! You rock!")? The rules themselves simply refer to threads, but the way it's been taken by several people here seems to be about posts that are positive about a member, or positive comments, and as far as I can tell, none of the mods have corrected them so far.

A clarification of the official interpretation would be great.

 

[GenMarshall]

I don't think we should consider complementing other posters, verboten or elitism. Complements are harmless.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

I will make it a personal mission to report every compliment being made to another poster. How many points is a compliment worth ? What about longer posts praising another user ?

 

[azzaman333]

I will make it a personal mission to report every compliment being made to another poster. How many points is a compliment worth ? What about longer posts praising another user ?

That's a great idea, such a wise man you are.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Elitism and personal threads
In the forums, we expect everyone to treat other posters equally and fairly. As such, threads that suggest that some members are better, funnier, more popular etc, and threads that discuss specific forum members, either positively or negatively are not allowed.

This section of the new rules seems to be causing some problems and folks are focusing on a perceived restriction on saying nice things about others. To begin, you need to read the entire sentence: “As such, threads that suggest that some members are better, funnier, more popular etc, and threads that discuss specific forum members, either positively or negatively are not allowed.” The restriction is on threads and not posts. We do not want threads like: “My favorite posters” or “Top 10 posters of 2010 are”. History shows us that these kinds of threads tend to cause problems.

The other half of what is being forgotten is this from the opening of the rules:

As a member of the CFC community it is important that you become familiar with the expectations we have for participating and the specific rules our moderating staff enforces. As you read through the following text, please keep in mind that no set of rules or list of inappropriate behaviors can ever be complete enough to show every possible situation. These rules are the guidelines that the staff uses in maintaining order and civility at CFC. While an effort has been made to clarify many situations, the moderators can, and will, interpret these rules and apply them to specific situations as they see fit. We cannot hope to cover every single rule in detail, nor write specific rules to cover every single contextual situation.

We are not publishing these rules so that “bush lawyers” can use them to try to prove that the moderating team or the rules are inconsistent. We have published them so you can better understand why moderators and Administrators do what they do. Moderators are encouraged to use discretion in the application of these rules and should not be expected or assumed to blindly apply "the rules" in each and every case.

So by all means say nice things about one another. Let others know you care and appreciate their specific contributions, but we don’t need threads dedicated to your favorites. Should such threads get started, we will use our discretion about whether or not we will close them or let them run a bit.

 

[Elrohir]

That's the common-sense answer I expected, but thanks for the clarification!

 

[GenMarshall]

So Bird (or any other moderator), It's alright that I can complement other poster's work (provided they post in the respected thread, eg Drawing Thread in A&E)?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So Bird (or any other moderator), It's alright that I can complement other poster's work (provided they post in the respected thread, eg Drawing Thread in A&E)?

As far as I'm concerned, you can compliment any artist's work you want in Arts & Entertainment, whether they post there or not. After all, it's kinda hard to require Leonardo da Vinci to join CFC and post in A&E before you can say you like his paintings (for example).

If somebody posts an especially well-written bit of information about a work of art (one that's not just copy/pasted from elsewhere, but an original post), feel free to compliment that as well.

As I understand it, don't the DYOS artists compliment each other when they feel praise is merited? That's perfectly fine by me! I like to see people acknowledging the good things others post.

As for starting a thread for the purpose of saying _____ is a good/great ______, we already have scads of those for non-CFC members such as Shakespeare, musicians of various eras and styles, etc. and that is part of why A&E was created - to discuss such topics.

Starting a thread to say that a specific CFC member is a good/great artist/musician/basket weaver, etc. ... well, if Plotinus doesn't mind, I don't mind a trial run to see how it goes. But he needs to be okay with it, too.

Anybody remember Bozo Erectus' "MS Paint" thread from a few years ago? He posted a selection of pictures he'd done with a simple Paint program, and they were absolutely gorgeous! Since the OT mods at the time didn't mind his posting that, I'm at a loss to understand the nay-sayers now.

 

[Mise]

"Feelings of elitism", rather than elitism itself, means posters either feeling that they are not as valued because they are not as popular, or trying to become so. We don't want things turning into a popularity contest.

So if I start a thread that listed all the things I valued in a poster, including how thoughtful they are, how coherently they write, how knowledgeable they are, how receptive they are to other people's opinions, etc, that would be allowed. But if I said, "Off the top of my head, Tony, Craig, Scott, Pete, and VoodooNutcracker476, amongst many others, are some examples of people who exhibit those qualities," in the OP, that would not be allowed? Would this post have been allowed, under the new rules (if the usernames were real and not made up, that is).

And, crucially, would trying to become more popular under the metrics I set forth above be such a terrible thing...?

None of this makes me think that you guys actually want us to become better posters. This "elitism" crutch you use to slap down community building and self-reinforcing posting standards is wearing tediously thin.

 

[Camikaze]

Maybe an example to clarify: under these rules, would this thread and poll be allowed? It is essentially a popularity contest between 6 forum members (I know 5 have accounts; not sure about Brian Reynolds). 4 clearly fit under the 'public figure' category, and whilst the other 2 kinda do, I would think they qualify as CFC members more so. Is it promoting elitism too much (or risking too much negativity) by allowing for such a thread? Would it be considered acceptable for any other member to be added to the poll in that thread (as a moderator did for the Sullla option)? How would this all sit with the proposed rules?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think such a poll is just fine. It has a very specific focus and seeks opinions on who might be best at designing a civ game. Now if you added my name or other known unqualified people to the poll, then you would be just spamming.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

A civ design by you would be fine
The instructions would be written in rhyme.