IranPlanet.net?

Post Reply New Topic

Not necessarily. One could have much more clearly-defined rules that are in fact have the effect of making the place a freer place to share ideas whilst also stepping in where harm occurs - essentially, less scope for arbitrary rule.

Exactly, that's what I mean. The rules shouldn't be open to interpretation by individual mods, they should instead be detailed. But that doesn't mean the details can't allow the rules to be more permissive instead of more restrictive.

Ah, but we have mysterious powers on the Dark Side and can summon him.
*swishes cape*

Thanks, and I hope not too.
But honestly, guys (that's a generic and non-gendered "guys"; no-one in particular) - sometimes looking out for WP members and trying to keep things ship-shape is like herding cats.

I can herd cats easily, just wave some cat food at them. In the same way, if you wave some awesome discussions which won't be censored at WP members, they'll all be good? I think? I dunno, that's a s**t analogy

Something we were talking about today.
The trouble is, the more you look into this the longer a list of check-box items grows - and that's before treating WP as an international site.
Primarily WP is a support forum and that alone implies more restriction and control than might be found on other sites.
While a snipe or barbed comment made somewhere else might just get a well-deserved acidic reply, here it's likely to be taken seriously. That's not good.

So where should the relaxing start and how deeply should it go? To the extent that people who come here for help with Autism and related stuff (and they actually do, you know - and they receive it) go somewhere else instead?

Maybe you could just be stricter in the Haven?

I tend to view most of the site as a "sensitive" area, and The Haven doubly so. It always has been the most heavily moderated, for obvious reasons.

But the unique thread (hah!) of this site is Autism: it permeates every aspect of it and that requires a different style of moderation.
I'm well aware that it may come across as a bit nannyish to some and compared to other sites I suppose it is - but I think the reason for that should be pretty clear.

Forums like PPR are moderated more lightly but we still have to occasionally wade in, brandishing cattle prods.
The Adult forums are just plain tricky. There's a certain freedom of "muckiness" allowed in the rules but it's simply impossible to accurately define what should be allowed there and how far it can go.
Unless someone can realistically define "offensive" and "obscene" for me? You know; so it's as realistic for everyone, irrespective of where they're from.

that was not what i told you. this is what i told you:

"Offensive" for the purposes of WP should take into account how many people something will offend and how badly. So if a few people complain about one thread, it shouldn't be taken down if the topic isn't likely to be seen as offensive to most people, or if it's only a mildly offensive thread. Though I can see how even that can be tricky.

Obscenity is easy, though, especially in the adult section - is it something that's outright disturbing or a grey area? If not, then, in the adult section, it should be allowed, and if the thread's elsewhere in the forum, it should be moved to the adult section. The thing to remember is that, when people go into the adult section, they know what they can expect to find. If you don't think that's the case, put a stricter warning on it to make sure people are aware before they go on.

As I said, I don't wish to get into another argument over this, but it was stated by you in the thread itself that it was a civil intellectual debate before the post by the other member which was deemed OTT. I was not condescending to anyone, though one member in particular certainly was. I don't believe there was too much disrespect until the OTT post caused more controversy, so removing it and any replies to it would have sufficed IMHO. It would have made sense if you'd done a mod note stating why the posts were removed.

You're right, and sorry; I'm going to need some help defining those.
To whom - a moderator? A.N. Ordinary member?
They only know to find what's allowed in the rules. As do we.
I don't think they should expect to find most of the mucky stuff that's available elsewhere - because it's available elsewhere.

I think you guys are doing a fine job. I don't even bother to read most TOS, I just try not be a dick unless absolutely necessary ( ) or pointlessly controversial and that tends to work out for me wherever I go

Unfortunately, we cannot run Wrong Planet to be a perfect environment for each and every member. Some of us are going to have to leave some of our less socially acceptable habits at the door if we want to stick around.

Luckily there are other websites on the internet that will cater for other kinds of proclivities, and I encourage people to go find them rather than try to turn WP into something it's not.

I myself found it unsatisfying that I had no appropriate space to discuss my interests here at WP in a way that is agreeable to me, so I went and joined other web forums.

i was pointing out the fact you omitted pertinent parts of what i said to you. you are welcome to represent the exchange however you want, but you can expect i'll be here actually showing people what i said to you. the words speak for themselves.

the thread started degenerating on page 1 and went from bad to worse. several people in the thread did state to you that your manner was condescending in the OP (your thread title was "Is a BDSM relationship healthier than a vanilla one?").

of course, you are welcome to start another thread, as your thread subject was suitably general and not prohibited. many people have started similar threads that did not descend into such a state as your did, so you would probably want to use wording that does not imply that your tastes are healthier or better than anyone else's.

The thread in question was not meant to be about BDSM in general, though, it was to analyse a theory. I never went and said "This way is better than any other way!" I stated a theory which was derived from a study and asked for opinions on it. I even went on to state that it's not something I agree with, but rather, something I simply found an interesting subversion of typical stereotypes.

The fact that it got out of hand was not due to my manner at all. My manner was purely logical, I did not defend the idea in the OP, but merely put it up for discussion as a point of interest.

See, this is what I mean when I say I know this isn't an easy job, and this is also why lawyers get paid so goddamn well

I'll be more constructive tomorrow, when it isn't 1:16am

Actually, I'll probably be too busy tomorrow. Friday I'll do it