Should this forum have rules?

[Keith Jordan]

I think so. Without them it will become a mess but with them there is censorship. There is a payoff between the two though. Do you want no rules, less rules, same rules or more rules??

Every community has laws, customs and a way of doing things. Here are the current forum rules...

http://www.neptunepinkfloyd.co.uk/for/v ... .php?t=508

[Feeling Very Pink]

Same rules. I visit other forums, where there are little or no rules (save for common sense ones like no racism, etc) and believe me, things can get out of hand! Compromise is OK by me.

[Real Pink in the Inside]

Less rules.

I think you should just keep these rules (Most of them are common sense):

>>>USER ACCOUNTS<<<

1 - Your user account and access to the board is a privilidge and can be taken away at any time if you persistently break the forum rules.

2 - Only one account per person. Multiple accounts for the same person will be deleted and the member/s permanently banned.

>>>WRITTEN LANGUAGE<<<

1 - No swearing.
2 - Post in English only.
3 - No writing in paragraphs of CAPITAL LETTERS.
4 - No over punctuation - putting 20 period points after a sentence, for example.

>>>TOPICS<<<

1 ? No topics of a sexual, racial or taboo nature will be permitted.

>>>POSTS<<<

3 - No defamatory or libellous posts about any individuals or other websites (Note: The truth is not libel)

4 - Posting the same message across multiple topics is prohibited.

6 - No immature, pathetic or pointless posts (especially during intoxication). The occasional one will just be deleted but persistent offenders will face more stern action.

8 - No advertising or promotion of websites, products etc. Putting up a link to support a point made on the forum is fine though.

9 - When "quoting" another users comments and responding to them, please only copy the text you are referring to. You do not have to quote the whole post. This is to save on bandwidth and server storage costs.

11 - If you are moderated for breaking one of the communities rules then take note and move on. (Note: Edited part of the rule)

-----------

I would also put up a rule stating plagiarism is not tolerated.

[Keith Jordan]

Less rules.

I think you should just keep these rules

So, these are the rules you want to be taken away below? You also missed out the consequences for breaking the rules. Do you think there should be consequences?

Now Rpiti, I challenge you to explain to me why you think each of the rules below should be moved. Without them, you could personally attack pink floyd members (which is pointless), other board members, you could say libelous things about other people and web boards on the internet, you would destroy threads by going off topic and, as well as doing all that on the public forum, you could do it by provate messaging also?

Now why would you want those rules removing?



1 - No personal attacks on Members of Pink Floyd past or present or other board members. This will be judged by the content and attitude of posts and any underlying intentions judged in their historical context will be taken account of.

2 - No Gilmour Vs Waters debates in threads that have the aim of putting one of them down for the sake of it. Basically, no bashing! I am more inspired by Waters and will say so on the board but will not put Gilmour down.

5 ? No aggression towards other members of the board. Disagreement is fine but no personal attacks or aggressive language.

7 - No mentioning other web boards and, in particular, negatively criticising or "putting down" other boards, sites and people.

10 - Stay on topic as much as possible. If you have a tangent you would like to go off on, start a new thread and then post a link to it in the original topic you are in. It helps to keep things tidy.

>>>PRIVATE MESSAGING<<<

Attacking people or othewise victimising them via PM is not permitted and will not be torelated. The only consequences for this action are being banned or informing your local law enforcement agency. Be warned that you can be traced by your real IP address through your ISP to be found if you are engaged in illegal activities - such as threatening behaviour.

[aitor103]

I`m rather in the dark about what you mean by " No personal attacks on Members of Pink Floyd past or present" could you please be a little more specific.After all one mans personal attack might very well be anothers reasoned and valid criticism.

[grateful pink]

I see no reason for a change in the rules that are already in place. Because of them I have had the occasion to think twice about what I was about to say and avoided pointless arguments or hurting other peoples feelings needlessly.

Rules are important, especially on a website where everyone can pretty much say what is on their mind. I do believe that if one is warned not to do something and the continue to do it in the face of warnings, the owners or moderators should have the right to ban them. That is only fair. I know bashing of the band or other users when I see it and I have seen it on the forum. I see it alot on other sites. I feel if people want to endlessly argue Waters vs Gilmour or Barrett vs the rest of Pink Floyd, they should go to the other sites and ply their arguments. Once we know where someone stands, no need to continue to bash just in a lame attempt at getting the other person or persons to change their minds. They won't. It is a matter of taste and there is no accounting for it. It just is.

Anyway...I've had my say

[Keith Jordan]

I`m rather in the dark about what you mean by " No personal attacks on Members of Pink Floyd past or present" could you please be a little more specific.After all one mans personal attack might very well be anothers reasoned and valid criticism.

Saying that Pink Floyd should not have continued after Roger Waters left because it tainted the legacy of the Pink Floyd, therefore David Gilmour is tainting the legacy of the floyd is fine. Saying he is selfish for this reason or that reason is a personal opinion and is fine if backed up with evidence. But just coming out with something like david gilmour is a looser and should be shot in the heart is a personal attack. No point, no evidence, no need. Not allowed. That is what that rule is about.

[Real Pink in the Inside]

1 - No personal attacks on Members of Pink Floyd past or present or other board members. This will be judged by the content and attitude of posts and any underlying intentions judged in their historical context will be taken account of.

Criticizing someone is NOT personally attacking them. What exactly is a personal attack on a member of PF? I would say threatening to harm them. Calling them names is OK since they are not members of the board.

They've taken a lot worse from the press than anything anyone has ever said on here. If someone says something like, "I'm going to kill [Insert name of Floyd member]" (Which has NEVER happened on here and I am willing to bet never will) obviously their local authorities should be notified, and they should be banned immediately. But not allowing anyone to criticize them in any way? That's rubbish. They're not infallible gods.

2 - No Gilmour Vs Waters debates in threads that have the aim of putting one of them down for the sake of it. Basically, no bashing! I am more inspired by Waters and will say so on the board but will not put Gilmour down.

Just as there are some people who love Star Wars Vs. Star Trek debates, there are numerous individuals who love Waters Vs. Gilmour debates. It's all in good fun. If someone does not want to take part in a Gilmour Vs. Waters debate they do not have to. It's that simple. What is wrong with a debate if no name-calling is involved?

5 ? No aggression towards other members of the board. Disagreement is fine but no personal attacks or aggressive language.

Aggressive language? Way too subjective.

Instead of saying "personal attack," I think you should say this:

Nobody is allowed to call a member a name, or threaten to harm them.

7 - No mentioning other web boards and, in particular, negatively criticising or "putting down" other boards, sites and people.

This rule should stick. This is not a place for personal grudges.

10 - Stay on topic as much as possible. If you have a tangent you would like to go off on, start a new thread and then post a link to it in the original topic you are in. It helps to keep things tidy.

Going off on a tangent is not a big problem. It happens all of the time. In addition, it's too tough for a moderator to enforce this rule. This rule should be axed.

>>>PRIVATE MESSAGING<<<

Attacking people or othewise victimising them via PM is not permitted and will not be torelated. The only consequences for this action are being banned or informing your local law enforcement agency. Be warned that you can be traced by your real IP address through your ISP to be found if you are engaged in illegal activities - such as threatening behaviour.

If you threaten someone via PM you're breaking the law. You do not need to tell everyone that. I just think that stating all of the above does not give a new user a good vibe.

You also missed out the consequences for breaking the rules. Do you think there should be consequences?

If someone threatens to harm someone, or posts pornography they should be banned without warning. Whenever someone breaks any of the other rules, just delete or edit their post and ask them kindly via PM to behave. I am sure such warnings will be few and far between.

Now Rpiti, I challenge you to explain to me why you think each of the above rules should be removed.

I challenge you to explain why you think they should stay.

[Pugs on the Wing]

Well, I think these rules are good, except for #10:

10 - Stay on topic as much as possible. If you have a tangent you would like to go off on, start a new thread and then post a link to it in the original topic you are in. It helps to keep things tidy.

I can think of one thread that went off tangent, (after #10 was instated) but no one seemed to care. I noticed, and thought...hmmm...selective enforcement. Personally, I think #10 is silly because it's the nature of the beast to go off tangent a lot on all webboards (not just PF boards).

I would replace #10 w/no hotlinking images. Sorry, but it's my white whale.

Also, no insulting other members. Now what if someone says on the board, for example, "I think liberals are full of spit and they should all be rounded up and shot". They didn't insult anyone on the board by name, but since there are a good many board members who consider themselves liberals, well, they just blanketly insulted a bunch of people. But not by name. See my point? Where does one draw the line?

And where does one draw the line at insulting Pink Floyd? Why is a Nick vs. Rick post OK, but not a you-know-who vs. you-know-who?

I guess I could go on, but there are too many things I could point out that it would get tiring. When you start making rules, people are going to feel like you didn't enforce them when you should've and vice-versa. It gets so tricky.

But I still have to say they're OK except #10 is rather unnecessary.

And I really wouldn't add anymore in number, maybe just change the current ones as stated above.

OK, now that I've thought this over a little as I was re-reading it, I guess my biggest thing is:

It doesn't matter what the rules are as long as they are CONSISTENTLY applied across the board. Nothing peeves me more when I see someone getting away with something (I'm not necessaarily referring to this or even message boards at all) while others can't. An oppressive regime isn't so bad when all are living under it. It's when there's a select few that get to live in luxury, that's when it sucks. Hope this makes sense.

[Keith Jordan]

1 - No personal attacks on Members of Pink Floyd past or present or other board members. This will be judged by the content and attitude of posts and any underlying intentions judged in their historical context will be taken account of.

Saying David Gilmour, for example, is a looser is a personal attack and will not be tollerated on this forum because it is messy, tacky, trashy and immature. This rules stays.

- No Gilmour Vs Waters debates in threads that have the aim of putting one of them down for the sake of it. Basically, no bashing! I am more inspired by Waters and will say so on the board but will not put Gilmour down.

They bring a bad vibe to the board. If you are the type of individual who likes to set waters up against gilmour then there are plenty of other forums to do this. This is not one of them. This rule stays.


5 ? No aggression towards other members of the board. Disagreement is fine but no personal attacks or aggressive language.

This is a friendly forum and so "fighting" between users is not allowed. For example, saying such a person, you are an idiot and do not deserve to be a pink floyd fan is not allowed. This rule stays.


7 - No mentioning other web boards and, in particular, negatively criticising or "putting down" other boards, sites and people.

You now agree you requested the removal of this rule was an error on your part.


10 - Stay on topic as much as possible. If you have a tangent you would like to go off on, start a new thread and then post a link to it in the original topic you are in. It helps to keep things tidy.

I agree with you on this one. Going of on a tangent is a natural thing to do. I appreciate your input as a member of the community here for bringing this to my attention. I don't think it should be axed but modified. TRY to stay on topic. It is stating common sense for the purpose of making the forum as user friendly and useful as possible.

[piinkfloyyd]

Well, I think with no rules you're asking for trouble, anarchy (at least historically) has never worked. On the other hand, dictatorial rule has never succeeded either (except for maybe Cuba, but thats a different forum...). Rules are good for the common cause, rules benefit the common good; a line needs to be drawn so that it is clear when this line has been crossed. And there should be "sanctions" for crossing the line...
"that's my dime- my two cents is free..."

[Real Pink in the Inside]

Saying that Pink Floyd should not have continued after Roger Waters left because it tainted the legacy of the Pink Floyd, therefore David Gilmour is tainting the legacy of the floyd is fine.

If someone does that they are accused of starting up a Waters Vs. Gilmour debate.

Saying he is selfish for this reason or that reason is a personal opinion and is fine if backed up with evidence.

They are still accused of starting a Waters Vs. Gilmour debate, and/or "bashing" said member.

But just coming out with something like david gilmour is a looser and should be shot in the heart is a personal attack.

Someone should be allowed to state they think a member of Floyd is a loser with no supporting argument. They will just look like a fool.

No point, no evidence, no need.

Ask for evidence. If they don't provide any they will look like a fool. Case closed.

[W1P]

Posted: Wed May 07, 2003 10:29 pm Post subject: Pink Floyd Related Information

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

I want to state my bias from the outset -- I tried to post some info about a Floyd tribute CD done in part by a Floyd tribute band and I was hit with Rule #8 "no advertising" I can certainly understand that you would want to prevent advertising for Viagra, or mortgage loans or cable de-scramblers -- that makes perfect sense. But in my view, posting information about Pink Floyd related projects or items (like tribute bands or tribute records) should be fair game even if there is a component of "advertising" involved. In my view, people who post here have a great deal of interest in projects like the one I mentioned. The site that I posted gives me the ability to see precisely what website people are linking from. More than a dozen people from Neptune logged on to our CD website during the brief period in which my original post was up. If the people who frequent this site are interested in Floyd-related information similar to what I posted, why should it be banned? Isn't there a way to modify the rule to permit the posting of Floyd-related information even if there is a commercial content to it?

[Keith Jordan]

Well, I think these rules are good, except for #10:

10 - Stay on topic as much as possible. If you have a tangent you would like to go off on, start a new thread and then post a link to it in the original topic you are in. It helps to keep things tidy.

I can think of one thread that went off tangent, (after #10 was instated) but no one seemed to care. I noticed, and thought...hmmm...selective enforcement. Personally, I think #10 is silly because it's the nature of the beast to go off tangent a lot on all webboards (not just PF boards).

I would replace #10 w/no hotlinking images. Sorry, but it's my white whale.

Also, no insulting other members. Now what if someone says on the board, for example, "I think liberals are full of spit and they should all be rounded up and shot". They didn't insult anyone on the board by name, but since there are a good many board members who consider themselves liberals, well, they just blanketly insulted a bunch of people. But not by name. See my point? Where does one draw the line?

And where does one draw the line at insulting Pink Floyd? Why is a Nick vs. Rick post OK, but not a you-know-who vs. you-know-who?

Try to stay on topic as much as possible is more of a guideline. When talking in a topic entitled what do you think about this new album, if somebody starts saying stuff like, i like pink floyds light shows. anybody got a picture to share. That is tacky and ruins the flow of the topic in question.

Personal attacks are not nice. At least attacking a collective of people (non-racially, sexually or other unecessary ways) is not as bad but still not encouraged. Saying you hate liberals is more of a fun comment. Political banter. Saying you hate Chinese people, for example, is not nice. Not only that, it will be deleted for being unacceptable on this forum.

Consistency is hard to do. Subjectivity is also a difficult issue in a community also. But people know when they have crossed the line. This is a pink floyd forum for sensible discussion about all things floyd. If this forums "feel" is not suitable to any of the members then there are others on the internet where there is more freedom in what is allowed to be said. I do not want to be a part of that movement and the people I enjoy having around as friends on this forum are decent and respectable people. Not foul mouthed haters.

[Real Pink in the Inside]

Why did you bother putting up this poll, Keef?