Thread: New Rules: Final Opportunity for comment before going into effect on Feb 21st

Ok, pending any changes that come from the final open discussion period of the next seven days, these rules will go into effect on February 21st.

================================================== =========


This is a community. That means that we are many different people making up a single entity. Respect other members of the community and don’t belittle, make fun off, or insult another member. If you feel a post violates a rule, don’t retaliate, report the post.

Moderators are volunteers that help out the forum for FREE. Until you have walked in a moderator's shoes, you have no idea the number of hours that they put into making this a better community for YOU. Please treat all moderators with respect in both public forums and in any private messages. Moderators also are expected to treat the members with respect in both public forums and in any private messages.

The good of the BroncosForums community will always be the driving factor. No single poster is larger then the community and will be allowed to constantly disrupt the community. Posters that are not able to follow the forum rules and are not able to interact with other posters and the moderators in a civil manner will have their privilege of posting on BroncosForums removed.

BroncosForums.com Posting Rules:

1. No discussion about how to conduct illegal activity, including posting links to sites that discuss such activity.

2. No Flaming, baiting or harassing. Regardless of whether you like a poster or a point being made, do not resort to flaming and harassing that poster. Don’t post “flame-bait”. That is a post just to irritate members or designed to get a reaction from another poster. This type of posting behavior will be dealt with in much the same manner as personal attacks.

3. No threats, name calling, ethnic or racist remarks, gender harassment or other type of posts that attack another poster or posters.

4. No use of obscene or indecent language, obscene or indecent photos, or links to obscene language or photos, or anything that would be considered offensive to most people may be posted. Since it is difficult to define what is 'obscene or indecent' or what will offend most people, the 'benchmark' that will be used is Prime time Network TV. If the FCC does not allow it on Prime Time Network TV, it is not allowed on BroncosForums.com. -- Note: final decisions on what is or is not obscene will be made by the moderators and the admins.

Note: The exception to this rules is that more adult orientated language and risqué images (NOT nudity) are allowed in The Lounge (see stickied threads in that forum for specifics).

5. Censored Words: If a word is censored, meaning if you type a word that the message board automatically replaces with ****, it is NOT allowed to to use characters like !, @, etc. to get around the profanity filter, nor can you add a smiley to the end of a censored word or use any other trick to get around the profanity filter.

It is allowed for a member to type a censored word and let the profanity filter substitute **** for it. This will be seen as the equivalent of beeping or bleeping out bad words on TV/radio.

Acronyms that are allowed: WTH, WTF, FUBAR, SNAFU, LMAO, LMFAO, ROFLMAO, ROFLMFAO, BS, SOB

Acronyms that are not allowed: S.T.F.U., F.U.

This guideline will not list specific words that have been approved or disapproved. If the profanity filter replaces a word with ****, do not use any variation of that word, nor alter it to get it past the filter. If a moderator tells you a word or word variation is not allowed, do not use it.

Note: The exception to this rules is that circumventing the filter is acceptable in The Lounge (see stickied threads in that forum for specifics).

6. Avatars and Signatures: You may not have obscene or sexually explicit images in your avatars or signatures. Again, the Primetime Network TV test will be used as to whether or not it is acceptable.

No political signatures or avatars will be permitted -- final determination as to whether a signature or avatar is 'political' will be made by the moderators and admins.

Images must conform with non opt-in standards -- final determination as to whether a signature or avatar image is to explicit will be made by the moderators and admins.

Positive religious messages will be allowed -- final determination as to whether a signature or avatar image is to explicit will be made by the moderators and admins.

7. Use of Multiple user names is not Permitted – You have signed up with a user name, and that is the only one that should be registered. Posting under multiple user names will result in all user names being banned.

8. No advertising – No links (including in signatures) intended to advertise or posts intended to advertise are permitted. If in doubt, request approval first.

Some exceptions will be made for non-commercial sites, but approval must be sought from an administrator prior to posting.

9. Moderators decision's are NOT to be questioned or ignored within the forum or threads where the action took place. If a moderator deletes a post or thread, do not start another one with the same topic, or create a post/thread asking why “xxxx” was deleted.

Do not disregard a moderator's directive within a thread, and do not post mocking or sarcastic responses to a moderator directive.

If you have a question or concern about a specific moderator decision, you can send a PM to another mod or admin (Tned) and discuss it privately.

If you are concerned with how the site is being run or moderated, it is acceptable, and encouraged, to create a thread in the Town Hall forum and discuss the subject in 'general' and whether a change to the rules or the enforcement/interpretation of the rules needs to be considered. However, any Town Hall thread of this type should be an honest discussion about the rules, interpretation and enforcement of the rules. Do not use Town Hall threads as a means to create a backhanded or thinly veiled attack on a moderator action or protest of a moderator action.

10. While BroncosForums has political and religion forums, any member that wishes to participate must agree to not resort to baiting, flaming or attacking. It is important to understand that it is unlikely you will ever change the mind of a stranger on these types of subjects. If threads become heated, or result in complaints, then they may be edited, closed or removed by a Moderator. If a particular user's posts constantly results in moderator edits or deletions, it may be cause for disciplinary action, which could include the poster losing the right to participate in the P&R forums or an account suspension or ban.

This cannot be stressed enough. If you are going to participate in P&R, you must have thick skin and NOT resort to personal attacks when others disagree with you.

While staying on topic is always important, it is ‘essential’ in P&R. Many posters participating in P&R consider the discussions and debates very serious, do not make jokes or derail the threads with off topic remarks.

Carrying P&R grudges into the main forums will NOT be tolerated and will at minimum result in the loss of P&R privileges.

11. Negative PM's and MHS messages: It is not allowed to use private messages and MHS messages to send negative or nasty messages. These will not be tolerated and swift action will be taken by moderators.

12. Reporting posts: It is every member's responsibility to report posts that violate these rules. It should never be assumed that a moderator reads every post. Instead, the moderators rely heavily on the community policing itself by reporting posts, PMs and MHS messages that violate the rules.

It is NEVER acceptable for a forum member to "take matters into his/her own hands" and deal with another member who has violated the rules by attacking that poster. If you see a post that violates the rule, your ONLY course of action is to report the post, not to retaliate and 'fix it' yourself.

No matter how well meaning, any poster that attacks another for any reason will be dealt with the same. Report, don't retaliate.

As a member of this community, you have a responsibility to BroncosForums. That includes both following the rules and reporting those that do not.

I like ****. Buimmer that it's not allowed.

Is there a way to turn off sigs or avatars for certain individuals, kinda like the ignore button???

It just seems like that would be the easiest thing to do- if thats an option available to you.

If not, i dont know. I understand the whole political/religious sig thing and not being in the political/religious forum at the time, but i also think people should be able to put what they want in their sig as long as it isnt a direct slander towards others views.

ex. God is my saviour, he is the bomb---thats ok.

ex2. God is everyones saviour, and allah should be strapped to a bomb---not ok.

Or whatever.

So i would vote its ok to have them in sigs, i suppose, but if its a big deal i could really care less. Good luck.

Originally Posted by underrated29

Is there a way to turn off sigs or avatars for certain individuals, kinda like the ignore button???

It just seems like that would be the easiest thing to do- if thats an option available to you.

If not, i dont know. I understand the whole political/religious sig thing and not being in the political/religious forum at the time, but i also think people should be able to put what they want in their sig as long as it isnt a direct slander towards others views.

ex. God is my saviour, he is the bomb---thats ok.

ex2. God is everyones saviour, and allah should be strapped to a bomb---not ok.

Or whatever.

So i would vote its ok to have them in sigs, i suppose, but if its a big deal i could really care less. Good luck.

There isn't an option to ignore certain individual sigs/avvies. I know some have said, "if you don't like someones sigs, you can just turn them off".

Based on feedback I have read and the conclusion I have come to, there are two problems with that.

First, it isn't fair to tell people that are here for the sites primary purpose, a Broncos forum, to tell of all sigs/avvies if they don't want to see the sigs/avvies meant to mock/inflame people with differing political views.

Second, it creates a VERY bad impression that visit the site for the first time. Maybe they googled Broncos or Broncos Message Board and find their way here, and then they are hit with a Bush morped into Hitler avvy or Obama morphed into Hitler avvy, or the various other political sigs/avvies intended to inflame other posters.

P&R isn't the 'primary' reason for this message board to exist, Broncos and football discussion is. P&R is an area that many felt shouldn't even have been allowed in the beginning, because of the belief it would eventually lead to massive hard feelings and feuding (guess they were right). We had to make it opt-in, because some posters chose to make the subjects as inflammatory as possible, which meant that people clicking "New Posts" had to deal with the flaming back and forth, even if they chose not to enter the actual threads.

However, they can't get away from the sigs/avvies, unless they turn them all off. Is that fair??

What about the people that just want to see majestic poodles wearing Broncos cardigans? Should they have to give up on that, because they don't want to see our President compared to the worst men in history?

Bronco Mania, here we come....

Even your own poll failed to produce a majority against the political avys and sigs.

Why have comments if the rules are already decided?

I urge all to read the purposed COC and post any questions regarding it.. It is a good way to get feed back and answer your questions..

Originally Posted by underrated29

Is there a way to turn off sigs or avatars for certain individuals, kinda like the ignore button???

It just seems like that would be the easiest thing to do- if thats an option available to you.

If not, i dont know. I understand the whole political/religious sig thing and not being in the political/religious forum at the time, but i also think people should be able to put what they want in their sig as long as it isnt a direct slander towards others views.

ex. God is my saviour, he is the bomb---thats ok.

ex2. God is everyones saviour, and allah should be strapped to a bomb.---not ok
Or whatever.

So i would vote its ok to have them in sigs, i suppose, but if its a big deal i could really care less. Good luck.

I'll take this option.

Do what cha gotta do Tned!! I guess if people don't like it they can move on to other places!

Mtn-man has a point because you and many others left BM because of these kind of rules or was it just the blue background issue. Oh well, people whine alot and are offended easily for being on the internet!

Say your piece and move on, ignore if you don't like something...there are options! Maybe you should have a breathalizer attached to the forums as well for the late nighters!

Don’t post “flame-bait”. That is a post just to irritate members or designed to get a reaction from another poster. This type of posting behavior will be dealt with in much the same manner as personal attacks.

The only problem with this portion is rule gets broken daily from members up to Mods. How do you plan to regulate it when Mods cross this line?

Originally Posted by Northman

The only problem with this portion is rule gets broken daily from members up to Mods. How do you plan to regulate it when Mods cross this line?

This has been discussed actually and our consensus is this: Mods are subject to the same rules and 'punishments' as everyone else. The mod in question, of course, does not get a say in what happens.

We're human too. We get caught up and cross the lines, the same as anyone else. Just because we're in a position of power, does not mean we get a free pass.

Originally Posted by Northman

The only problem with this portion is rule gets broken daily from members up to Mods. How do you plan to regulate it when Mods cross this line?

I think you raise a good point and question.

First, you are right, the rule is broken daily at the moment, and hasn't been enforced on a regular basis. Partially because it was previously located in the 'guidelines' section, rather than the rules, partially because 'baiting' is so hard to define.

However, defined or not, most of us can tell pretty clearly when someone is doing it.

Second, as to the mods, that goes back to community involvement. If a mod breaks any of the posting rules, then it is your responsibility, my responsibility, everyone's responsibility to report that post.

I've reported moderator posts that violated rules. How many other people have? People have to be willing to be part of the process, in order for us to be a good and fun community.

I think Frau said it well, mods are expected to follow the same posting rules as anyone else. If a mod doesn't, report it, and it will be reviewed, just like any other report/rules violations.

I have a couple questions in regards to #10:

If a poster makes a joke in P&R, but the rest of their post deals with the subject, is that acceptable?

And if P&R requires on topic (or relevant topic posting), can we require it for Town Hall discussions as well? Maybe not as strict as there have been some very funny threads in here, but purposely derailing Town Hall threads has always bugged me.

First, I have a hard time equating most political statements with Hitler-esque
caricatures of Bush or Obama. That seems a poor example of why political
sigs would be banned. In fact, posters have already been ordered to remove
such pictures on this board. They are already forbidden.

I also do not believe that a lurking guest would be discouraged by at least the
positive political statements of a few. Therefore, I believe the wholesale
knee-jerk banning of alllllll political sigs and avatars is superfluous and
unnecessary.

Second, I believe enforcement of the "do not make jokes" and "derail" part of
the rules is nebulous, subjective, and unnecessary. So now, according to the
rules, all jokes are taboo in P&R. This is ludicrous. I guess to enter the Politics
forum, we should all don stovetop hats, grow neck beards (no offense, Mo),
and maintain a somber deamenor.

And, for pity's sake, don't "derail," whatever that means. I know I was very
confused as to what it means on this board when I offered an apology to
another poster, and it was deleted because it was deemed "derailing."

Problems arise when subjective and nebulous terminology finds its way into
regulations. At times, those enforcing them don't know what to do: I know
from experience. But listening is an art, maybe a gift, and not all people have
it. So we do what we are going to do, consequences be damned.

Rules are rules, no matter how ridiculous, and I'll do my best to abide by them.

-----

Originally Posted by Nomad

Do what cha gotta do Tned!! I guess if people don't like it they can move on to other places!

Mtn-man has a point because you and many others left BM because of these kind of rules or was it just the blue background issue. Oh well, people whine alot and are offended easily for being on the internet!

Say your piece and move on, ignore if you don't like something...there are options! Maybe you should have a breathalizer attached to the forums as well for the late nighters!

I think it's hard to give one reason why people left Mania.

For many, the primary reason was the white background.

For many, it was the method with which the IP system was implemented (no

warning, giving IP points for tiny little infractions, like joking nicknames with friends that were deemed racial slurs).

In some cases, it was just a feel that over the previous 6 months or so, the tone of the community had changed, between it being flooded with new, trash talking members (after they tied it more closely to the home page in an effort to drive more traffic to the forum, with the intent of loading it with advertising).

I'm only aware of a couple people that disliked Mania for their rules, but I did here concerns about some mods having hair triggers when it came to banning (unlike here, they didn't vote on bans, any mod -- or at least not junior mods -- could issue a ban. Correct me if I am wrong, LT on how it was before the IP system).

So, there were a lot of things, and it was very individualized to each poster, why they wanted to move on.

I honestly think it was a VERY small number of posters that left Mania, because they couldn't portray Bush, Obama or any other President as a modern day Hitler in their Avvies. I think a tiny number that left because they got banned if they treated other members like shit.

I could be wrong, and that is why I want one more week to discuss these rules before finalizing them, but the feedback I have received recently and in the past, tells me that the vast majority of posters want at least a 'reasonably' civil posting enviornment to come to to have fun.

Originally Posted by Tned

I think you raise a good point and question.

First, you are right, the rule is broken daily at the moment, and hasn't been enforced on a regular basis. Partially because it was previously located in the 'guidelines' section, rather than the rules, partially because 'baiting' is so hard to define.

However, defined or not, most of us can tell pretty clearly when someone is doing it.

Second, as to the mods, that goes back to community involvement. If a mod breaks any of the posting rules, then it is your responsibility, my responsibility, everyone's responsibility to report that post.

I've reported moderator posts that violated rules. How many other people have? People have to be willing to be part of the process, in order for us to be a good and fun community.

I think Frau said it well, mods are expected to follow the same posting rules as anyone else. If a mod doesn't, report it, and it will be reviewed, just like any other report/rules violations.

Well, in theory that is great. But having been on the other side of the fence i can say that there tends to be a different code when it comes to handling issues between Mods and the ordinary member. When a Mod goes and determines whether or not another mod has crossed the line most times than not the mod in question usually just has his post deleted without any further punishment or warning. Im not trying to create a hoopla as i myself have crossed the line plenty in both regards. But, because the line is so grey i think you need to come up with a better system in that regard because one of the things that draws the ire from the board is the "impression" that one is favored over the other. Now, i was never here for the "committee" that you guys had while still having mods but maybe thats something you should attempt again so that there is a check and balance. At least create one for regulating the Mods in some way.