Boeing's Recommended Rules Changes.

[Dayman]

In order to spark some debate back into here, I am going to go over each and every rule, and try to find, and eliminate every single possible fault and breach of the spirit of free speech that I can. I will also recommend general changes that I feel are apt. Feel free to disagree and yell at me. Remember these are just my personal suggestions.

--------------------------------------------------

Signature Size Violation (1 point)

Members may not use signatures where the total size in bytes of all signature images combined is more than 250 KB.

This is pretty simple, but, could do with some editing. Also this is such a minor violation (it doesn't harm anyone unless you consider sucking others bandwidth) that it doesn't need to be worth a point. Now, I suggest marking whether or not things are worth points as well.

My version:

1. Signature Size Policy

Site policy dictates that no member's signature may exceed 250 KB. This includes all aspects of the signature, not just images.

Penalties if violated:
First time: A note for record keeping purposes, and the removal of your signature in it's entirety.
Subsequent offenses: One point warning and the removal of your signature in its entirety. Multiple, deliberate offenses may result in your privelege to display an signature/and or avatar.

--------------------------------------------------

Off-topic Posting (1 or 2 points)

Topicality is expected and will be enforced on all forums, so take the extra time to post on the proper forum. Examples of off-topic posting include, but are not limited to:

* Threads that are not related to the topic of the forum in question, or that contain no material that can reasonably be discussed
* Posts that are not related to the topic of the thread in question, or that contain no material that can reasonably be discussed
* Re-posting threads that you know have already been posted elsewhere
* In the Discussion and Debate forums, statements about other members, whether implicit or explicit, are off-topic. Statements that disrupt the discussion, regardless of intent, will be singled out in particular.
* Unsolicited advertisement for any website, product, service, or facility not first approved by TWC staff

You can advertise websites, products, etc. in your signature, avatar, or other profile fields, as long as you post productively and don't just try to get exposure for your advertisements. Recommendation of websites, products, or other resources are also allowed if relevant to legitimate discussions.

This one is a hot issue and a source of contention, as the threads in this forum will attest too. The policy that has been enforced in the mudpit will be codified here, and changed to reflect the view that besides me, Ferrets and GED have shared.

My Version:

2. Off Topic Posting

Topicality is strictly forced according to forum location. Posts within a topic are granted leniency as to not disrupt the natural flow of conversation. Examples of off-topic posting include, but are not limited to:

-Topics that are not in their proper forums, or have no redeeming quality or overt purpose.
-Posts that have nothing to do with what is currently being discussed within a topic. For example, a post in a thread on the status of abortion in the US that refers to state's rights is on topic, a post that condemns to hell all those who support abortion is not. Posts with no redeeming quality or pertinent material are also continued off topic.
-Unsubstantiated, negative character references to other posters are off limits. Calling someone who is a supporter of Bush a fascist, when he is in fact a social conservative is off topic. If that poster is in fact, actually a fascist, and the poster has proof, that is not considered off topic. Particularly vicious unsubstantiated negative character references can and will be moderated as flaming, even if they are found to be true.
-Unsolicited advertisement for any website, product, service, or facility not first approved by TWC staff. Randomly spamming your own forum will get you in trouble. Asking for permission to do this is recommended first, and if granted one topic will be allowed. Advertisements in your signature are allowed, as long as they are not referenced in posts. Recommendation of websites, products, or other resources are also allowed if relevant to legitimate discussions. Asking for rep is also considered an unsolicited advertisement.

----------------------------------------------------------

Obscene Content (3 or 6 points)

Obscene content is not allowed. This includes, but is not limited to:

* Providing images or videos of nudity. Nudity includes:
o Any figure whose genitals, pubic hair, buttocks, or (if female) nipples or areolas are exposed, partially or totally; or are not exposed, but it's clear that this is only because of the angle of the shot or incidental intervening objects (e.g., hands, hair, bits of cloth).
o Visible outlines of female nipples or female genitals through clothing (e.g., "camel toes").
o Anything that falls narrowly outside the previous provisions, at the discretion of the moderators.
This applies to photographs, drawings, or any other representation of humanoid figures. It may also apply to non-humanoid figures such as animals, at the discretion of the moderators. Nudity may be permitted for serious and non-titillating purposes, such as the exhibition of recognized art or historical models in modifications, at the discretion of the moderators.
* Providing image, video, or audio files that represent or hint at sexual intercourse, foreplay, :wub:, etc.
* Verbally describing genitals, sex acts, :wub:, or similarly inappropriate content. This does not include passing references, but includes descriptions that are graphic or include any details.
* Providing images, videos, or verbal descriptions of an unreasonably disgusting nature. This includes, but is not limited to: excrement, real-world violence, and extreme virtual or imagined violence.

Links may not be posted for the purpose of providing obscene content. If a website incidentally includes some reasonably obscene content, it's acceptable to link to it for some other purpose as long as a clear warning is given. Similarly, if content incidentally includes some reasonably obscene content, it's acceptable to include it in a post for some other purpose, as long as a clear warning is given and the reader must actively click a button to view it (e.g., spoiler boxes or YouTube videos).

Excessively obscene content is still not allowed to be posted or linked to in any fashion. The distinction between moderate and excessive obscenity is at the discretion of the moderators. As always, if you aren't sure, ask a moderator.

This one is a hot topic because of Sim's recent changes. I disagree with most of them, for one reason or another, but mostly because this leads to what I, and others, feel is applying personal morals on a broad basis, without consideration to the at large feelings of the posting populace.

The old version was decent, while I don't feel I need to elaborate too much, because I agree with what Shyam Popat has enclosed here:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=185553

I also agree with his proposal on illegal activities:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=185555

Shyam's point on the site not having a responsibility regarding these things should say something.




This is it for the moment, if I feel anything else should change I'll bring it up in later posts and update this one.

[Simetrical]

This is pretty simple, but, could do with some editing. Also this is such a minor violation (it doesn't harm anyone unless you consider sucking others bandwidth) that it doesn't need to be worth a point. Now, I suggest marking whether or not things are worth points as well.

As the "Terms Violations" section says, usually a note (0 points) is given out for minor offenses. Really (3 or 6 points) means (0, 3, or 6 points), and so on. The insignificance of the sig violation rule is the reason that it's the only offense that can never get you more than one point, already.

Penalties if violated:
First time: A note for record keeping purposes, and the removal of your signature in it's entirety.
Subsequent offenses: One point warning and the removal of your signature in its entirety. Multiple, deliberate offenses may result in your privelege to display an signature/and or avatar.

This adds penalties into the general rules specification, which I don't think is a good idea. The current unified system of infraction points works quite well: all you have to specify per-offense is the points, and the penalties follow from there. This is simpler, especially since your proposal basically duplicates the existing points-based practice.

Also, disabling signature/avatar on a person-by-person basis is fairly annoying to carry out.

2. Off Topic Posting

Topicality is strictly forced according to forum location. Posts within a topic are granted leniency as to not disrupt the natural flow of conversation. Examples of off-topic posting include, but are not limited to:

-Topics that are not in their proper forums, or have no redeeming quality or overt purpose.
-Posts that have nothing to do with what is currently being discussed within a topic. For example, a post in a thread on the status of abortion in the US that refers to state's rights is on topic, a post that condemns to hell all those who support abortion is not.

That's a very touchy distinction to use for an example. People are entitled to support laws for religious reasons, at least in the United States. So it seems to be as relevant as states' rights.

-Unsubstantiated, negative character references to other posters are off limits. Calling someone who is a supporter of Bush a fascist, when he is in fact a social conservative is off topic. If that poster is in fact, actually a fascist, and the poster has proof, that is not considered off topic. Particularly vicious unsubstantiated negative character references can and will be moderated as flaming, even if they are found to be true.

An interesting wording. This doesn't really seem to fit under the off-topic offense, though.

-Unsolicited advertisement for any website, product, service, or facility not first approved by TWC staff. Randomly spamming your own forum will get you in trouble. Asking for permission to do this is recommended first, and if granted one topic will be allowed. Advertisements in your signature are allowed, as long as they are not referenced in posts. Recommendation of websites, products, or other resources are also allowed if relevant to legitimate discussions. Asking for rep is also considered an unsolicited advertisement.

I wouldn't classify asking for rep that way. I'd put it under more general off-topic provisions, not advertising.

As a general note, the tone of this proposal is very different from that of the existing rules. It would be kind of jarring if adopted verbatim. Lots of casual language and examples. It makes it a lot wordier. I don't know if it helps comprehensibility overall.

This one is a hot topic because of Sim's recent changes. I disagree with most of them, for one reason or another, but mostly because this leads to what I, and others, feel is applying personal morals on a broad basis, without consideration to the at large feelings of the posting populace.

The old version was decent, while I don't feel I need to elaborate too much, because I agree with what Shyam Popat has enclosed here:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=185553

I also agree with his proposal on illegal activities:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=185555

Yeah, this is all being hashed out in multiple other forums already. Not much point in repeating everything here. Or in the Committee giving recommendations when it's been skipped and proposals are already being held in the Prothalamos.

Shyam's point on the site not having a responsibility regarding these things should say something.

I don't think so. The site has no responsibility to enforce almost any of the rules. These are no different.

[Dayman]

As a general note, the tone of this proposal is very different from that of the existing rules. It would be kind of jarring if adopted verbatim. Lots of casual language and examples. It makes it a lot wordier. I don't know if it helps comprehensibility overall.

Remember, this is just a brainstorm I had the other night. By no means are they meant to be the actual wording, just how I would do things.

Or in the Committee giving recommendations when it's been skipped and proposals are already being held in the Prothalamos.

I'm hoping to change that, this little topic being part of it

I'll get to your more specific points when I can summon the strength.