Are WP rules too vague/open to interpretation?

Post Reply New Topic

This has been playing on my mind on and off for a number of weeks now, and I wish to speak my mind and offer some suggestions on how things can be improved regarding the WP rules and their enforcement. The recent incident involving Monkey's avatar and etc has kinda made me want to pipe up about it all. Bear in mind Monkey's case makes a good example about what I'm trying to say.

Ok....I've seen it a few times now, where someone somewhere on the board has made an offensive post, posted shocking images yada yada. And the mods then dealing with it (IMO) in a bureaucratically nonsensical way. That is, having to consult with each other, having a board meeting and long winded japanese tea ceremony, messaging Alex back and forth, before they finally determine whether that single post or image is against the rules and deletable. I'm sorry, but to me that seems like a complete and utter waste of time and moderator energy, especially over something so trivial as a 100kb image.

Why is there any need for this back and forth consultation between the mods and Alex at all?

My guess: It's because the WP rules which the mods must refer to when making decisions are too vague and too open to interpretation to follow and act on.

Take Monkey's example. Her avatar, not explicitly against the rules as far as I can see (nowhere does it state that images containing nudity are prohibited). But it does say that "Posting offensive language, comments, video, or images." is prohibited, and therein lies the the problem. "Offensive" is too open to interpretation. One thing that is nothing to one person is a vulgar eyesore to another. Breast nudity is deemed offensive to some but not to others. Pictures of aborted fetuses are deemed offensive by some but not by others. Hence the need for the meetings and ceremonies of mods to determine if it should be removed or not, because they can't decipher themselves individually whether the picture is against the rules either (I'm guessing they then ask Alex to elaborate on the rules which he then does at his discretion, call it a "private ruling" if you will)

My suggestion: The WP rules should be expanded to be more indepth, and should be black & white down the line about what sort of stuff is prohibited and what is not. For example "Offensive pictures" should be elaborated on to include a list of specific types of images that are prohibited.

Example list (and this is just a hypothetical list): Images depicting:
- Pornography (including cartoon depictions)
- Full & partial nudity
- Genitalia
- Excessive violence
- Surgical procedures, autopsies
- Animal cruelty
- Racist symbols (swastikas etc)
- Sexual fetishes and sex paraphernalia (gags, bindings, dildos etc)
- Bodily excrement
- Drug use
- Paedophilia
- Maybe more I haven't thought of yet

The idea of making the rules more indepth and concise is to leave less room for interpretation of the rules, less ambiguity, hence not as much need to consult anyone on what action should be taken, hence you mods all save time and can get onto doing other things, and Alex has more time to do technical stuff with the site.. It would make mod decisions more uniform and consistent too (as you'd all be basing your decisions on one common set of principles).

So what does everyone else think?

I agree that the rules should be defined better, it would speed things up a lot when moderating as you say, and also easier to understand for readers.

On one hand, censorship is good: you don't want people to be offended. On the other hand: sucks to your feelings! And like you said, what's offensive is completely subjective. You can find nudity in National Geographic, but it isn't classified as pornographic, but educational. In the case of MONKEY's avatar, I think she should be free to use it if she wants, and if it bothers someone, they can just ignore it, or get AdBlock and block it manually so they don't have to see it. Or stop being such prudes.

Two things.

First, I completely agree with you and would love it if the rules were less ambiguous. Unfortunately, the mods didn't write the rules and they are very difficult to get rewritten as Alex must do so or approve of the changes and we usually only hear from him every other week or so - which leads me to my second point.

There are very few issues that we consult with Alex regarding, and Monkey's avatar wasn't one of them. As a professional courtesy to each other, especially as we are all three new to the job, we like to check in with one another to make sure that any one of us doesn't have a strong objection to a stance one of us takes as that stance will set precedence for future actions. We try and act swiftly and as we get to know each other better I expect we will check in with each other less.

So, I apologize if our response time is not where the membership would like it to be. We are looking to add some more moderators. Right now I am the only one on the American continent which leaves some time zone gaps as we all must sleep and work and have our own lives outside this place

The rules here are fine just as they are, and there is virtually no chance of their ever being changed or revised ... and all of that makes complete sense when looking at all of this from Alex' point of view:

Anyone and everyone who would like to be a member here is welcomed, and each of us can do as we please here as long as we do not do so at the expense of others.

All the best constitutions are deliberately vague.

I learned recently that that's why so many countries base theirs on the Irish one; it's so bad, it's good.

Yes. No set of laws or rules could ever even possibly come close to matching the "self-government" of a society committed to principles.

No rule can ever suffice to cover off every circumstance, so interpretation on the part of those who are responsible for administering the rules is always going to be required. This is as true for the internet as it is for the law.

I don't see a problem with rules cast in broad, high-level language, provided that it is understood that those who are enforcing the rules are going to do so with a modicum of good sense, impartiality and reason. The problem comes, in my view, when there are too few moderators for the size of the community, or when those moderators lack the experience or insight to exercise judgement related to context. What we should allow in PPR is vastly different from what we should allow in the Haven.

Thank you for posting this. I have been wanting to post something like this for a very long time but had always been unsure.

I do agree the rules here should be black and white because if they aren't, then it causes confusion. It makes it harder for anyone to follow the rules.

From what I have learned here I have noticed these things:


Personal attacks are acceptable if they attack you first so you have the right to lash back at them. I don't see members getting into trouble for attacking someone when it's the other person's fault or if the mods think it is.

Calling people a troll, is it okay to call them one if the mods think the person is one too.

It's okay to discuss fetishes (I could never figure out the gray area for this so I had always watched other members and see what is acceptable and do it myself)

Basically it is okay to ask if anyone has ever peed in the shower, gray area I have learned there.

It's okay to have multiple accounts if you are a returned member

Cursing is okay and I just recently learned just as long as the word doesn't get censored, it's acceptable to use here but just don't call other people it. So that would mean me getting a warning for calling myself an a**hole was a bogus warning so I guess that is taken off what rules I had broken.

You can post attacks on another site if you are talking about a thread that was about you. But yet when I did the same thing sort of where I got into an argument with someone on AFF and posted a link to it, I got warned for it and was told it was posting attacks on another site. So I assume the whole thread has to be about me and then it would have been acceptable and because the thread on AFF was not about me, it was an attack and it broke the rules.

Trolling is acceptable here just as long as it's harmless and not hurting anyone, teaser threads anyone, or posting dumb threads like "Do toys come to life" and talking about how they do come to life. Also just as long as you are not breaking any other rules.

It's okay to make threads on members if it's a positive thread, not a negative one. But basically making a thread about their posts counts or how many topics they post is considered a call out. I learned this in 2007. Asking who is the most aspie here is considered an attack I learned in 2009 but yet it's okay to ask who is the less aspiest here is acceptable. Yeah that is why I don't even make fun threads on WP members because I have no idea what be seen as an attack by the mods and got two warnings for it because they thought I did it intentionally.




The only problem I have had issues with is the discussion of banned members because it causes problems between mods and members. It doesn't say 99% of the time when a member is banned so no one knows that user is banned and they end up getting warned when they have talked about that person as if they did it intentionally. And the old mods seemed to have expected for everyone to know who is banned and who isn't. Should this part be black and white? It would cause problems again because this is a rule that can get broken again and again because you don't know who is banned and bam you get banned if you break this rule and didn't even know it.



And I do agree rules can be interpreted differently by each person. I have noticed in 2010 people have their own perception of what a personal attack is. So it makes it even harder for me to know what are personal attacks here. I have noticed each place has their own interpretation of what a personal attack is. At Babycenter, posting peoples blogs or their other posts from other threads in their thread is considered a personal attack because they say it humiliates the person. And my example of what thread I posted about who is the severest aspie here was seen as an attack so that shows how people have their own standards on what an attack is and what isn't so it makes it confusing.

I think it's impossible to follow rules and not ever break them again because we all have our own interpretations on call outs or personal attacks, or what is offensive, etc. I don't think it's something to hold against us for breaking them and say we kept breaking the same rules and acting like we are trolls and acting like we did it intentionally and that we didn't change our ways. From how my mind works, I only learn THAT is against the rules and it doesn't tell me anything else that is against the rules because to me it might not be offensive, it might not be a personal attack, but yet it may be to others but not to me so I am not going to know I am breaking the same rules again. So if I were to post a thread and it broke the rules somehow, I am only going to learn THAT is against the rules and falls under the rules. I am not going to learn of anything else. My mind has always worked this way and as a kid I was always accused of not following the rules. Then I got it here too from two former mods and it was very upsetting and appalling. Maybe this is what happened with me as SG but I sure didn't keep getting PMs every time so I assume I didn't keep breaking them. I don't know, it's still confusing. It made me realize some things still need to be black and white or else I'd have a hard time. If mods allow things on here, I am going to think it's okay to do it and think it's a gray area.

Yes.

You make very many good points here, and I think it is great to have all of those discrepancies pointed out!

I have watched many things change over my year-and-a-half here ... and that is just how things are. WP can either be run by a hard-line monarch, by some common-sense moderation such as we have at the moment or by nothing at all ... and I think whatever we might have here at any point in time is the best we will/can have at that time.

Oooh boy. Let me try and clarify my own stance on some of this before another member assumes the lack of a response somehow endorses this as a list of rules

The system isn't perfect, but we do try and stop everyone from attacking anyone in public as it doesn't contribute to the discourse.



Calling someone a troll is allowed when the person is a troll. The problem is that with the diverse types of ASD communication styles many people are accused wrongly and I would really prefer if nobody accused anybody of trolling in public. If you have a concern please PM a moderator about it.


So long as you aren't graphic.



It is okay to have multiple accounts so long as you are only using one and you have had it cleared with the moderation staff in advance.



This is a contentious issue that I wish we had a better answer for at the moment. The rules state that swearing is not allowed but the enforcement takes into account the context and location.



I think that several of your examples are referring to previous moderation staff members. I personally don't moderate any other boards and do not feel it is in my mandate to enforce WP rules outside of WP.



My own definition of trolling is attacking other members, intentionally derailing conversations, trying to sell something, spamming multiple forums, impersonating other members, inciting prejudice, etc. People can talk about whatever silliness they want to so long as they do so where it is appropriate. In the middle of another thread is not appropriate. In the Haven is not appropriate. In Random is appropriate. Who am I to judge you for believing toys come to life or whatever else you believe or want to discuss.



If you are being supportive and not derogatory or aggressive or creepy I doubt anyone will give you any trouble over that, unless the individual the post was about felt offended or uncomfortable and then it would need to come down.



I don't interpret that rule to say that you can't ever mention the name of a banned member, I interpret it to state that public discussion and debate about the reasons for the ban is not allowed.



We are willing to work with individuals to help them come to an understanding. We are very cognizant of the fact that there is a lot of TOM and executive functioning challenges present on the boards. If you are being malicious it is an attack. If you aren't it might be a mistake. Either way it needs to be corrected when it happens.



It is impossible for 3 separate individuals from different countries and cultures and backgrounds to make the exact same call every time, but please believe that we are trying. A warning is not the end of the world, think of it as a learning opportunity.

If you ever have any questions please feel free to ask before you post, and also know that you needn't stress so much over the details and worry about getting banned. My experiences with you thus far indicate to me that you are unlikely to be banned for your actions unless you radically alter your baseline behavior patterns, but you are likely to need a prod one way or the other on occasion. I haven't seen you act maliciously in the past and as long as you don't begin doing so in the future your membership with WP is pretty secure.

Last edited by MidlifeAspie on 22 Mar 2011, 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thank you Lee

If MONKEY can have a nude avatar, why can't nude pictures be posted on the forum? Rules should be consistent.

If you want to post Monkey's avatar somewhere else on the forum then I can assure you it will be allowed. If you have something you consider to be art that you would like posted to the Art forum I would recommend that you run it past a moderator first and it may be allowed as well.

Nude pictures are nude pictures, it seems silly to make exceptions.

There is no rule against nude pictures. The rule prohibits:



The purpose of this rule is to maintain a family friendly site. Something you would see in National Geographic, or the Discovery Channel or the Louvre is acceptable. Something from Playboy or Penthouse is not. This really isn't that difficult to surmise.

Last edited by MidlifeAspie on 22 Mar 2011, 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.