The Long-Awaited Posting Rules

Which, given that they were lifted from Tac's Posting Rules (who mined them from the Agonist, shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

Here we go:

Be reasonably civil.

No profanity. For the record, 'hell', 'damn' and 'pissed' are not considered 'profanity' for the purposes of this rule; also for the record, the more offensive racial slurs and epithets will be deemed to 'profanity' for the purposes of this rule

Don't disrupt or destroy meaningful conversation for its own sake.

Do not consistently abuse or vilify other posters for its own sake.

Like Tac, we don't ban for ideological reasons (unless you're a Nazi or something equally vile) and/or simple disagreements (never mind that it's not the easiest thing in the world to find someone who can manage to disagree with all of us on the same topic). We're all adults here, so I'm sure that this should be sufficient - with one caveat: there are a couple of notable trolls out there who will be banned the moment that they show up. As of 1:18 PM EST, Sunday, November 30, 2003, they haven't, so if you've made a post here before then I'm not talking about you.

Lastly, just a reminder that Left and Right have very broad definitions and that people are going to take it personally if you inform them that of course all Xs eat babies, should they themselves be Xs (or Ys trying to keep things cool).

UPDATE (05/19/2004): As you may have noticed, we delete and ban spambots on sight. This is because comments sections are for original and/or interesting thoughts, not mass postings. Therefore, please note that if I come across a overly-long comment that is obviously a cut n'paste job, out it goes, no apologies, no regrets. Small cut n'pastes are fine; entire articles are not: when in doubt, it's too long. Mind, if you have seen or made a comment elsewhere that would be perfect for a particular thread, you are more than welcome to link to it; just don't give us the entire thing. We don't have unlimited storage space.

ANOTHER UPDATE (10/24/2004): Calls for the assassination of any politician will be subject to immediate banning. An exception is made for legitimate military targets in time of war; due to the unique nature of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, members of the Palestinian Authority are to be considered 'politicians' for the purpose of this rule.

The above should be explicitly not read as being a prohibition on (but is not limited to) criticism, vituperation, espousal of conspiracy theories, disagreement, speculation on personal habits and/or motivations, expressions of contempt, unfavorable extrapolations of past behavior in order to guess future behavior, mild cursing or any other traditional method of expressing disapproval with a politician's policy positions or personality, provided of course that such behavior does not violate another of the Posting Rules.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE (7/23/2006): Calls for the assassination of any person will be subject to immediate banning. Exceptions are made for legitimate military targets in time of war, being put to death after being convicted of a capital crime, etc. -- basically, the things that make a killing not 'assassination' to begin with. As before, this is not a prohibition on criticism, vituperation, and all those other good things; just a recognition that there's all the difference in the world between passionately disagreeing with someone and calling for that person's death.

STILL ANOTHER UPDATE (1/19/2007): If a commenter feels that another commenter has violated the posting rules and would like to request a temporary or permanent ban of that person, please send a request via email.

AND ANOTHER UPDATE: We have no desire to censor people whose views we disagree with. However, there is a difference between stating and defending an unpopular position on the one hand, and repeated drive-by insults on the other, and the fact that we welcome the first does not mean that we must accept the second. We therefore reserve the right to warn and, if necessary, ban commenters who show a consistent pattern of blatant disrespect toward groups of people (e.g., people of a given race, military status, sexual orientation, or religion), when that disrespect is coupled with an apparent lack of interest in providing evidence for one's views or engaging in reasoned argument about them.

Comments

[JKC]

I hope things stay as civil here as they (usually) have on Tac's site.

[harley]

Phew.

[angua]

Well, I disagree with all three of you on whether cats are good as pets or snackfood! (She says while someone fat and furry is purring unsuspecingly on her lap.)

[Jordan]

This'll be my inaugural post on OW (ow!) - so congrats to Moe, Katherine, & Von. May the three of you continue to make blogging seem rational and reasonable, sharp, and sharp-witted.

I thought to myself, what better place than the posting rules thread to post a very off-color joke? Since this is a 2-guys-and-a-girl joke, it should be perfect for Obsidian Wings. Can I be banned for bad taste?

format: joke, verbal
content: sex, grossout, 2 guys 1 girl
duration: 01:20 (wait for captive audience)
category: desert island
2003 all rights finagled

Two guys and a girl are marooned on a tropical island. They have abundant food & water & it doesn't take them long to set up a Tiki hut for shelter. Surviving wasn't a problem, however, they'd been blown way out of the sea lanes and hope for a quick rescue was pretty dim. Figuring out ways to pass the time became a major problem.

They held a meeting. "Look," they told themselves, "we're human, and bored, and sex is probably inevitable in this situation. Let's come to an arrangement now and head off any bad feelings later on."

They decided that the woman would take turns, sleeping with one man one day, the other the next day, and so on. This system was working pretty well up until the woman caught some strange tropical fever and died.

After the trauma of this wore off, the men found that the loneliness and boredom was even worse than before. They had another meeting. "Look" they said, "we're only human, and we could be here for years. If we could only get over certain scruples, we can find a way to make each other happy. Nobody even needs to know about it."

So with some misgivings, the two men tried out this new arrangement. After a week or so, however, they just couldn't take it anymore. "Don't take this the wrong way," said one, "but I think what we're doing is" "Unnatural" finished the other. "I know, this whole thing was a big mistake."

"You're right" said the first, "let's bury her."

[von]

Good addition to the posting rules, Moe.

[Kirby Helly]

I enjoy reading your information as your posting rules are updated with regularity
Thank you

[Trickster]

The 3rd and 4th posting rules are vague to the point of uselessness.

Let me suggest for #3:

Do not intentionally disrupt or destroy meaningful conversation unless you have a pressing reason.

#4 I'm not quite prepared to make a suggestion for, but it needs to be fleshed out and given meaning and concreteness.

Finally, let me suggest a #5:

In judging what constitutes a violation of the posting rules, the moderators will be inclined to give more leeway to a poster who consistently makes concrete and meaningful arguments than to a poster who consistently posts one-liners, particularly one-line insults and ridicule.

[Gary Farber]

Since I've read considerable discussion on other threads of the "new" posting rules, I'm dismayed, finally looking here, to see that they aren't actually posted, and the most recent update was Moe's on 10/24/2004.

I find this very confusing. There are posting rules that aren't posted under the posting rules?

Is, like, someone in charge around here?

[victoria]

i'm so happy i've discovered this site. for years i've tried to find out if my phobia was a real one. all my friends think i'm nuts but i want to know if i'm alone in this. here it is...i'm afraid of large things. but not all large things. not buildings or trees but mainly of large mounted animals. the kind that are stuffed in a museum. sometimes large tapistries or paintings do it to. the museum of natural history in new york city is a perfect example of my worst nightmare. my heart begins to race and i get very nervous around whales or planes or ships also. am i nuts? i hope not. can anyone relate?

[rilkefan]

In re the latest update: say it were 2002 - could I not advocate assassinating Saddam Hussein in lieu of invading Iraq?

[Macallan]

Is callling for this a violation?

[def]

also--do I fall afoul of the new rule only if I call for the killing of someone by name (e.g. Noam Chomsky)? How about if I use a description? (E.g., suppose someone--but surely not me!--were to call for the death of the authors of the new posting rule: would that violate the new posting rule?)

[Macallan]

What if you call for the death of irony?

[rilkefan]

def, Mac, got anything constructive to say? This particular subject deserves serious comments. There's an open thread up for snarking if you feel the need.

[hilzoy]

Irony, not being an individual, does not count. Head-butting, not being assassination, also does not count. Calling for the death of an individual under a description, rather than by name, obviously counts. Rilkefan's question is of course harder; offhand, I can only say that I suspect that we will have to exercise our judgment in that and other hard cases, and if this were offered as a policy recommendation, I would be inclined not to count it as banworthy. But there will always be judgment calls.

[Macallan]

Gee, you try and lighten the mood a bit and the poet fan attempts to strangle irony all by hisself. Fortunately, hilzoy goes with the flow. Way to hummmm!

Though I'm thinking about DefMac as a new nick, so all's not lost.

[rilkefan]

Mac, given the recent foodfights (to which the update relates) and your accomanying I-haven't-commented-here-in-years-but-I'm-happy-to-lecture-y'all ways and my screaming-to-Zanzibar-because-it's-ten-thirty five-week-old son and various other stuff, my patience is worn wafer-thin.

I wonder if "DefCon" is taken.

[Macallan]

Nah, I'm think'n it's our 100+ temps and the screaming-to-Zanizbar combo, but that's just the DefMac in me...

:-)

[carpeicthus]

I love that y'all went back to *2003* to get around the "no comments on that entry" thing.

[Gary Farber]

"YET ANOTHER UPDATE (7/23/2006)[...]
Posted by Moe Lane"

Who knew?

Incidentally, I'm a big fan of rules, and a big hater of "rules lawyers," the kind of person who constantly ignores the spirit, and asks "how about...?" in an attempt to be obnoxious.

This is not at all the same as genuine confusion, and reasonable attempts to ask for clarification of something that is simply poorly worded, or admits for ambiguity not originally intended. (I'll admit I'm quite prone to spotting that sort of thing.)

Rules lawyering is not that, but simply another form of trolling, an attempt to harass the site-owner(s) endlessly.

It's rarely hard to tell the difference, and never hard to tell for long.

Generally speaking, anyone who doesn't recognize that this isn't a thread for casual chat and ha-ha-s would seem to be um, not with the spirit of things, and not being helpful.

Purely, of course, IMO only.

[jingokillah]

Earnest and legit question, really. Not trying to be a 'rules lawyer', but thought of an exception. Legal State-mandated execution is not the same beast as assassination, yes? no? For example, if I call for charges of High Treason against a politician, I am implying death by hanging. Done in a legal, habeas corpus kinda way. In an ideological frame, the ends are the same though the means are very different.

Enough of a loophole for an amendment or revision?