01-October-2005, 04:46 PM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,158
|
|
I have no problem with the rules - I think they are fair and necessary. One thing I would like to comment on is the second paragraph involving warnings:
Quote:
|
For most of these rules, the first violation will result in a warning issued via Private Message (PM). If you have PMs turned off, we will issue the warning in the thread. In the case of a second violation, depending upon the severity, the moderators/administrators will issue a more stern warning, or they may ban you temporarily (for a few days), or they may permanently ban you.
|
I believe that if any poster violates the rules all warnings should be public. Two reasons. If, for example, I am rude with poster "A," a public warning will most likely nip it in the bud right there. If done via PM, Poster A or others might be inclined to respond to whatever I posted and run the risk of violating the rules themselves. At the very least it could result in the admins/mods getting barraged with people reporting the same infraction. The other reason is education. Wolverine's post regarding ad hominems involving RCH made me reflect on my past use of the term "quack" regarding one pseudoscience promoter in particular. I don't know if "quack" crosses the line or not, but the fact that I'm not so sure now will help me stick to the particular claims and avoid such unnecessary descriptors in the future.
|