# New Forum Guidelines



## Drew

Please take a moment to look over the new forum guidelines. The guidelines appears as an announcement at the top of all forums:
http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f41/announcements.html

I want to note that one of the changes is the absence of a prior rule:

Staff actions are open to criticism and debate, as long as they are not personal attacks and they are kept in the Board Feedback forum or private messages. Transparency is essential to running a community. Again, mature, constructive criticism of staff is no longer a violation of board guidelines.

Thanks,
Drew


----------



## njodis

Finally.


----------



## dontcare

Wait, so you can criticize, or you can't? I thought this means that before you can and now you're not allowed?


----------



## Drew

dontcare said:


> Wait, so you can criticize, or you can't? I thought this means that before you can and now you're not allowed?


You can, as long as it's not personal attacks.

*Constructive, mature, criticism is now welcomed.*


----------



## orpheus

> Staff actions are open to criticism and debate, as long as they are not personal attacks and they are kept in the Board Feedback forum or private messages. Transparency is essential to running a community. Again, mature, constructive criticism of staff is no longer a violation of board guidelines.


This is good news. Moderators are human too and thus prone to mis-judgements. I suspect the lack of transparency had left some regulars thinking, whether rightly or wrongly, that there was a bit of cronyism going on in regard to warnings and bans issued by some moderators. Establishing an avenue for appeal -- for lack of a better word -- will likely cool a lot of tension that has arisen lately.


----------



## Atticus

I welcome this. I hope that everyone is thoughtful and respectful in how they handle this opportunity.


----------



## Disintegrate

orpheus said:


> I suspect the lack of transparency had left some regulars thinking, whether rightly or wrongly, that there was a bit of cronyism going on in regard to warnings and bans issued by some moderators.


Yes, this is a wrong thinking.

*second quote withdrawn*


----------



## UltraShy

Drew said:


> *Constructive, mature, criticism is now welcomed.*


Thank you, Drew, that is a welcome change.

I have a comment/question on the subject of warnings.

If somebody had warnings from the old board were they carried over to this new board? Previously one could see their own warning status -- how many they had -- but now I can't find any such number of warnings listed. Is there some place I can find this information?

Back on the old board I asked about the issue of warnings, asking if there was some "three strikes" rule. One mod said there was no such thing. But then another mod said that he personally used a 3-strikes rule.

I do my best to not break SAS rules and would never intentionally post anything that I thought risked a warning and eventually being kicked off, but I find the inconsistent application of rules by mods unsettling.

The fact that at least one mod does (at at least did) personally use a three strikes rule made me very nervous & uncomfortable. I felt like I was tiptoeing through a minefield as I posted, not wanting to step on #3. If by chance I posted something that they took the wrong way and found offensive even though I meant no offense at all I could get kicked off for warning #3. Yet nothing would happen if I got a mod who didn't have a 3-strikes rule. I hate to think that being kicked off or not is totally arbitrary and simply depends on which mod happens to read my posts.

I pointed out the problem with 3-strikes. It's biased against prolific posters such as myself. It's hard to get 3 warnings if you only post 3 times a year unless you intentionally try to break the rules. On the other hand, if you make thousands of posts a year, it's quite possible that without intending to you may make a few posts that somebody finds objectionable, even though that certainly was not your intent.

I think warnings need to be looked at in the context of how many posts you make. Is it 3 minor offenses out of 3,000 posts, or is it 3 blatant violations out of only a small number of posts.


----------



## millenniumman75

We actually did those bans out based on severity.
The bans were during a period of time - like so many warnings within a three month period. At 90 days, the particular warning expired leaving any others filed after.

If we are more prolific posters, we should be able to handle the rules better, though .


----------



## orpheus

Disintegrate said:


> They usually weren't before and they damn sure won't be like that now.


That's a bit insulting to the users here. Drew's rules are simple. Are you suggesting the users can't follow simple rules?

I've been here since 2003, and I'll admit that I can remember some users lobbing insults at mods with impunity (the rules were sketchy back then). Some mods felt they had no way of keeping SAS from turning anarchastic and cracked down. I understand the concern. But the no questioning policy has its inherent problems too.

Drew is trying to find a balance between users attacking mods and users feeling like they have no say in what they perceive to be unfair decisions by moderators. If moderators think that the users here can't be constructive in their criticisim, that will be reflected in the feedback forum. I know this will make the job of a moderator more difficult, but any position of authority should be challenging.

I just used the new policy myself. Everyone can read about why I objected to a moderator's indirect warning today, and the mods and Drew can decide for themselves whether I was out of line based on the quoted conversation. 
Before Drew's new guidelines, I could not have questioned the moderator, even though I felt his accusation was off base. 
All we want is some transparency, and I think other users agree.


----------



## Atticus

Disintegrate said:


> Yes, this is a wrong thinking.
> 
> They usually weren't before and they damn sure won't be like that now.


As I've said before, people with severe anxiety may react poorly to being challenged, be they moderators or rank and file members. This option gives people a voice, and I'm hoping they don't abuse it.


----------



## kikachuck

Drew said:


> Please take a moment to look over the new forum guidelines. The guidelines appears as an announcement at the top of all forums:
> http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f41/announcements.html
> 
> I want to note that one of the changes is the absence of a prior rule:
> 
> Staff actions are open to criticism and debate, as long as they are not personal attacks and they are kept in the Board Feedback forum or private messages. Transparency is essential to running a community. Again, mature, constructive criticism of staff is no longer a violation of board guidelines.
> 
> Thanks,
> Drew


Thank you Drew. This is a very much needed and appreciated change. It's wonderful how responsive you've been to member's concerns.

I have a question about the "agenda pushing" clause of the guidelines, though. Is that one new? Even if it is or it isn't the word "agenda" is so vague how could something like that be enforced?


----------



## Drew

UltraShy said:


> Thank you, Drew, that is a welcome change.
> 
> I have a comment/question on the subject of warnings.
> 
> If somebody had warnings from the old board were they carried over to this new board? Previously one could see their own warning status -- how many they had -- but now I can't find any such number of warnings listed. Is there some place I can find this information?
> 
> Back on the old board I asked about the issue of warnings, asking if there was some "three strikes" rule. One mod said there was no such thing. But then another mod said that he personally used a 3-strikes rule.
> 
> I do my best to not break SAS rules and would never intentionally post anything that I thought risked a warning and eventually being kicked off, but I find the inconsistent application of rules by mods unsettling.
> 
> The fact that at least one mod does (at at least did) personally use a three strikes rule made me very nervous & uncomfortable. I felt like I was tiptoeing through a minefield as I posted, not wanting to step on #3. If by chance I posted something that they took the wrong way and found offensive even though I meant no offense at all I could get kicked off for warning #3. Yet nothing would happen if I got a mod who didn't have a 3-strikes rule. I hate to think that being kicked off or not is totally arbitrary and simply depends on which mod happens to read my posts.
> 
> I pointed out the problem with 3-strikes. It's biased against prolific posters such as myself. It's hard to get 3 warnings if you only post 3 times a year unless you intentionally try to break the rules. On the other hand, if you make thousands of posts a year, it's quite possible that without intending to you may make a few posts that somebody finds objectionable, even though that certainly was not your intent.
> 
> I think warnings need to be looked at in the context of how many posts you make. Is it 3 minor offenses out of 3,000 posts, or is it 3 blatant violations out of only a small number of posts.


There is no 3 absolute strike rule. Banning is dependent on the severity of the violation. I imagine you'd prefer a clearer answer than this, but there isn't going to be one.


----------



## Reachinghigher

Drew said:


> Please take a moment to look over the new forum guidelines. The guidelines appears as an announcement at the top of all forums:
> http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f41/announcements.html
> 
> I want to note that one of the changes is the absence of a prior rule:
> 
> Staff actions are open to criticism and debate, as long as they are not personal attacks and they are kept in the Board Feedback forum or private messages. Transparency is essential to running a community. Again, mature, constructive criticism of staff is no longer a violation of board guidelines.
> 
> Thanks,
> Drew





Drew said:


> You can, as long as it's not personal attacks.
> 
> *Constructive, mature, criticism is now welcomed.*


Thanks Drew. As UltraShy said, this will make for a welcomed change. However, I believe the moderators overall are doing great job. Like you said, as long as *one refrains from personal attacks and deals with any disagreement in a constructive and mature way, preferably through PM's or in Board Feedback,* is a good way to properly handle any grievances or mis-understandings someone may have on the board. :yes


----------



## Drew

And let's all remember the quote in Reachinghigher's signature:


> "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who pointed out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of the deeds could've done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; by Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## UltraShy

millenniumman75 said:


> At 90 days, the particular warning expired leaving any others filed after.


Is 90 days a change from prior policy?

I remember asking back in early September (after getting a 2nd warning) how long till a warning expires and I think it was Thunder who said a year. I remember that because keeping them around for a full year struck me as being excessively long.

In the distant past (like 3+ years ago) I was banned twice for a week. I certainly understand the need to make this board comfortable for people with SA, who may be more sensitive. But it should also be remembered that those getting banned suffer from SA as well and perhaps should be treated with sensitivity too.

Back then there were no warnings and it deeply hurt my feelings back then when I tried to log on only to find that I'd been banned for no stated reason and without warning. I felt like I'd been tossed out like yesterday's trash, certainly not making me feel like I was part of some warm & welcoming online community.


----------



## mountain5

I don't have much to say, other than I think this is a move in the right direction.


----------



## millenniumman75

UltraShy said:


> Is 90 days a change from prior policy?
> 
> I remember asking back in early September (after getting a 2nd warning) how long till a warning expires and I think it was Thunder who said a year. I remember that because keeping them around for a full year struck me as being excessively long.
> 
> In the distant past (like 3+ years ago) I was banned twice for a week. I certainly understand the need to make this board comfortable for people with SA, who may be more sensitive. But it should also be remembered that those getting banned suffer from SA as well and perhaps should be treated with sensitivity too.
> 
> Back then there were no warnings and it deeply hurt my feelings back then when I tried to log on only to find that I'd been banned for no stated reason and without warning. I felt like I'd been tossed out like yesterday's trash, certainly not making me feel like I was part of some warm & welcoming online community.


Ultrashy,

90 days was what we thought the length of time was for warnings for the version prior to this upgrade (to me, that's what I base the ban thing on - it only happened 2-3 times). If a person had a warning on July 30th and September 1, the older will have expired meaning there is only one warning. The board version wasn't around long enough to determine if it lasted a year. Before that, the only thing I did was lock (with an advisory) or remove threads. The warnings and stuff were always handled by other moderators. I have only been a moderator for just over two years.

I do know that the bans instituted have been short term (1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks), ranking up to a month depending on severity of warnings (or frequency of previous bans). If a member had been repeatedly banned, the length of time would obviously increase (I have never had to deak with that). These recent bans were nowhere near permanent, yet people treat it that way. .

Ironically, as long as there was no trolling, a person has always been welcome back. You would not believe it, but we were quite discouraged to have to ban people at all, but felt it necessary.

For several members, they have known me as a person who would state why something happened. I would often get flack from that. Even recently, I was severely attacked when a simple PM could have resolved a bunch of nerves.


----------



## Disintegrate

*withdrawn*


----------



## Disintegrate

kikachuck said:


> I have a question about the "agenda pushing" clause of the guidelines, though. Is that one new? Even if it is or it isn't the word "agenda" is so vague how could something like that be enforced?


No, that is not new.


----------



## orpheus

If moderators are singled out, then it should be obvious to other mods and Drew. I'd think you would welcome the use of Board Feedback. Users who target mods unfairly will be shown for what they are. 

For users, this gives them the sense that rules are applied fairly.
Btw, I too began using this site in 2002 (EZBoard - Can't remember my original username). It was the original site, but at the time I rarely posted. I remember hearing about SAS on a TV special on social anxiety (I can't remember the guy's name who started this site, but seeing that program was a cornerstone in my life). 

But I brought that up not to brag about my seniority, but to give my observations on the evolution of the board.


----------



## Kelly

I was a mod on another board for several years.

What they did on that board was slightly different. Mods couldn't ban people. Only the admin could. When a mod felt that a member should be banned, s/he sent a message to the mod email list. The admin then took it under consideration and made the decision.

I should stress that that board was HUGE, bigger than this one, had less moderators than there are here, and only one admin. Maybe this is something that could be implemented here with respect to both banning people and warning them? It would create more consistency. Mods could still watch threads, lock them, delete posts, alert the admins, etc.

And I agree, there's no rule in life saying that people in positions of authority are going to have an easy time of it. It's hard being a mod. It comes with the territory.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## Drew

Kelly said:


> I was a mod on another board for several years.
> 
> What they did on that board was slightly different. Mods couldn't ban people. Only the admin could. When a mod felt that a member should be banned, s/he sent a message to the mod email list. The admin then took it under consideration and made the decision.
> 
> I should stress that that board was HUGE, bigger than this one, had less moderators than there are here, and only one admin. Maybe this is something that could be implemented here with respect to both banning people and warning them? It would create more consistency. Mods could still watch threads, lock them, delete posts, alert the admins, etc.
> 
> And I agree, there's no rule in life saying that people in positions of authority are going to have an easy time of it. It's hard being a mod. It comes with the territory.
> 
> Have a nice day,
> Kelly


I appreciate your constructive feedback Kelly. The moderators here will continue to have their ability to ban and it will continue to be based on the guidelines. The difference is that the guidelines have changed a little bit, and so the criteria for banning has changed a little bit.


----------



## dontcare

I still think problems should be handled quietly, through PM'ing. There's not much point in all of us knowing when one person has a problem with one mod. I personally think that would just cause a lot of politics, which is never fun. Of course, I don't have to read the threads that are posted--but they're there, which I find disconcerting.


----------



## WineKitty

I personally welcome the opportunity. I think that we can have these discussions in a civilized manner.


----------

