New Site Policy Statement for your review

[SteveColes]

I wrote a new site policy statement while on the train yesterday. This is a draft for you review. I don't intend to make it public until it has been reviewed by this group. I suspect it needs a lot of work. I also suspect that we'll need to change it to better reflect the groups views.

I do not want this debate to last for more than a few days. It is clear that we need an official policy to point to.

Here is the URL for the first draft
Please leave any actual editing to either Monty or I.

Thanks

 

[chris99z71]

Kudos Steve! :eusa_clap
All well said. I can't see anyone having a problem with that. I especially like that you didn't just say "these are the rule", but rather started with goals and backed them up with rules designed to meet the goals. The wording is non-agressive but firm and decisivie.
The only other thing that I'd suggest - and I'm not sure exactly where it should go - is a statement encouraging people to make suggestions to better the site. But that's a pretty small point. And maybe a disclaimer about Woodguy disease, just to get that out front :lol:

Chris, I am testing something. Send me apm if you received a pm abour an edit to your post.

 

[Monty]

Nice work - very comprehensive. I never would have imagined that so many issues would arise in the moderation of a forum like this.... hopefully this will stave off problems before they arise.

I would suggest putting this actual text (once it's content is agreed on) in the registration agreement, in addition to providing a sticky in the webmaster announcements.

 

[NCPete]

Well said.

 

[SteveColes]

I would suggest putting this actual text (once it's content is agreed on) in the registration agreement, in addition to providing a sticky in the webmaster announcements.

Agreed!:icon_thum

 

[Ray Martin]

Steve,

I think this is a terrific statement / guideline for our site. Can't think of any changes.

Ray

 

[DaveO]

I think that it is well done and comunicated the thoughts very well :eusa_clap

Dave

 

[McRabbet]

Steve -- Very well stated -- This would be very hard to improve upon or for anyone to criticize... Excellent statement.

Rob

 

[SteveColes]

OK, now the question is there anyone who disagrees with it? And I guess given what I hope I said. Let pose the the following. Once aversion of this statement is published. What would be the correct, if any, actions to be taken in the following cases.

!. Screwed's username
2. GotWood's username
3. GotWood's avatar
4. jeff.. avatar
5. My signature

 

[DaveO]

Screwed username should be changed, althought I haven't seen him logged on. GotWood should change also. But I think that they should be let to initiate the change themselves after reading the statement, if that doesn't happen in a reasonable amount of time, then let them know. Jeff's... avitar, that's difficult. I think it complies with the statement. Your signature, if you want to set the best example for all, drop the first word. But I think that it is fine as is.
My $.02, Dave

 

[Ray Martin]

Steve,

Here's my thhoughts...

1. Screwed's username - This is a smart remark / double entendre. The first definition that would come to mind is "fouled up" or sexual. You'd have to think to connect this to a wood screw.
2. GotWood's username - First thing that came to mind was the comercial for "Got Milk". This one looks more like wood / woodworking than the sexual double entendre.
3. GotWood's avatar - This is clearly a political statement in that there is a woodpecker on the side of the photo. This is a picture of a real person.
4. jeff.. avatar - borderline. This is a strongly Christian icon. The question I have, is he expressing his belief or is he preaching? I think this one is more difficult.
5. My signature - This is a non-denominational, non-offensive prayer for self improvement. No Problems with this one at all.

I'm open to discussion (and would not take any offense to any decision tha either you or the group makes)

Ray

 

[SteveColes]

One of the reasons for writing the statement was to eliminate 99% of the discussion that has been going on this forum about what to do and give you all a document that you point to as reason for you moderation actions. So, I guess my statement of policy is not as good as some as stated. What I had hoped would happen was the violations would be clear and corrective action obvious. I picked those 5 examples, becuase I thought they would be clear. Somebody tell how to make it clearer. Please.
!. Screwed's username

Special attention will be paid to names that are double entendres, intentional or not.
In the case of a username, that violates the above, your account will be placed in a state of temporary suspension, and all your posts will become invisible to the general membership. After you have supplied the staff with an acceptable username, your active status will be restored and all your posts will become visible again.

2. GotWood's username

Special attention will be paid to names that are double entendres, intentional or not.
In the case of a username, that violates the above, your account will be placed in a state of temporary suspension, and all your posts will become invisible to the general membership. After you have supplied the staff with an acceptable username, your active status will be restored and all your posts will become visible again.

3. GotWood's avatar

Political content

This moderation may include deletion of
words or phrases, deletion of threads and/or posts, deletion of avatars and
signatures.

4. jeff.. avatar

Religious content

This moderation may include deletion of
words or phrases, deletion of threads and/or posts, deletion of avatars and
signatures.

5. My signature

Meets religous exception??

 

[DaveO]

This is why I think that Jeff.. avatar is difficult. Yes, it is of religious content, but he is not using it to "evanglize a persons point of view" he is just making a statement that he "loves God" not that you or I should. I don't know how you would reword things to make that line more clear.
Dave

 

[sapwood]

I find the policy statement somewhat restrictive, but accept its necessity to protect NCWWer. Most importantly, it is unequivocally fair.

1. Screwed user name: Although I find it somewhat humorous, it carries too many negative/sexual connotations. Change it.

2. GotWood user name: OK. No worse than Hardcharger.

3. GotWood avatar: Personally find it funny, but is blatantly political. Change it.

4. Jeff's avatar: Yesterday I reviewed all the avatars and Jeff's stood out. It has strong religious connotations. Change it.

5. My signature: God is used in many religions. As long as others are allowed to quote Allah, Buddha, or whatever . . . It's ok. Besides it's so pervasive in our language it would be like trying to censor "the".

When I was checking out the avatars I was amazed at how many members used dogs as avatars.

That's my input, thanks for asking.

Roger

You guys think faster than I can type!

 

[DaveO]

Never mind my last post, after reading the exceptions for religion I realize that you are only referring to the word "God" and not all religious statements. In that light, yes, Jeff's.. avatar should go.
Dave (rather dense at times :5dunce

 

[DaveO]

I just noticed that the NCWW Site Policies have been placed in the floating menu. Will there be an announcement about that, or are folks just to discover it on their own, like I did?

Dave

 

[cskipper]

Steve, I think it is well written, but would like to mull over it tonight. I'll get back about it tomorrow.

I believe that we asked Jeff to change his avatar before - anybody remember what it was then (I'm sure it must have been less acceptable than this one). Just curious.

 

[Monty]

I don't think we ever asked him to change his avatar. The controversy with him was his sig line, and some statements that got out of hand in his "who we are" thread... see our discussion thread here.

 

[Monty]

hehehe... I just re-read that thread. I must've been feeling kinda punchy! ;-)

 

[DaveO]

Well, his avatar has just changed. Did someone say something??? He now has a girl and guess what...a dog:-D

Dave