Rules discussion

[Jim]

Whirpool is responding to a post by new Member reach919 asking for advice on a telescope. I have moved that post to another forum.

[Chunky]

I read them. You're welcome.

[Australopithecus]

Good Morning!
I just got here and can't find the "Introductions" forum referenced in the header.
Also, where are al the rules posted? I'd like to read them before I make some horrible mistake and get banned before I even get going
Thanks!

[Australopithecus]

OOps!
Just found everything...
Please ignore previous post.
Sorry.

[hhEb09'1]

Six minutes. Maybe we're making them too easy to find.

[Van Rijn]

Rule 10 currently says:

Users are allowed only one account per person. Don't attempt to register a second or third forum username so you can have different personalities and have conversations with yourself. Sock puppets will not be tolerated. All such accounts (including the primary one) will be banned without warning.

I don't know if this clearly conveys that it doesn't matter if you're trying to have a second personality or conversations with yourself, or whether you currently have a working userid. Considering that a suspension, for whatever reason, becomes an instaban if someone tries to come back during their suspension, I'm wondering if the second sentence should be changed to something like:

Don't attempt to register a second or third forum username under any circumstances, including suspension of your primary username.

Thoughts?

[slang]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

Thoughts?

Agreed. And if that warning isn't shown on the registration page yet, perhaps add it there.

[pzkpfw]

One would not want that rule to be effective back-dated as some users have already (e.g. by forgetting passwords) made a second account; which has been accepted due to it not being used in a sock-puppetish way.

[geonuc]

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

One would not want that rule to be effective back-dated as some users have already (e.g. by forgetting passwords) made a second account; which has been accepted due to it not being used in a sock-puppetish way.

Which is reasonable, I think. But I would note that people who create a second account so they may argue their case on the forum after being suspended, as has happened, don't violate the implied intent of the sock-puppet rule. That is, they aren't doing it to have a conversation with themselves. The rule could be worded to more clearly state that that is unacceptable as well.

[grant hutchison]

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

One would not want that rule to be effective back-dated as some users have already (e.g. by forgetting passwords) made a second account; which has been accepted due to it not being used in a sock-puppetish way.

I have just such a user name, representing my first attempt to register here, which I somehow messed up, and then later found I could access after all.
If it is possible for the mods/admins to delete granthutchison [no space in the name], that would be a fine thing. I looked at it once and discovered two antique PMs that had gone to the wrong version of me, and which had therefore languished unanswered for a year or more.

Grant Hutchison

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

Considering that a suspension, for whatever reason, becomes an instaban if someone tries to come back during their suspension,

You appear to be making the distinction between a temporary ban (suspension) and a permanent ban ("instaban"), but in that context we have recently had an instance where that did not happen. Besides the other points brought up by others, that would make the proposed wording problematic.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

You appear to be making the distinction between a temporary ban (suspension) and a permanent ban ("instaban"),

The issue I'm concerned about is this: Someone gets a suspension. They attempt to come back under a different ID to argue their case, and that usually results in a ban. Sure, occasionally the permanent ban is lifted, but they apparently don't realize that they're turning a relatively minor issue into a major one.

I'm not arguing for specific wording. I'm just suggesting rethinking the wording to be clearer that it isn't just about multiple concurrent, actively used usernames.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

I'm just suggesting rethinking the wording to be clearer that it isn't just about multiple concurrent, actively used usernames.

But it is. The other case that you are describing is where someone has been banned (suspended), and refuses to recognize that ban (suspension). As you say, that's a different issue.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

But it is. The other case that you are describing is where someone has been banned (suspended), and refuses to recognize that ban (suspension). As you say, that's a different issue.

Which is not clearly covered. So why not add a statement to do so?

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

Which is not clearly covered. So why not add a statement to do so?

I think it is covered by Rule 15, which addresses trying to get around a ban, and the general rules at the top--the admins avoided trying to make rules that addressed each specific. It's probably not perfect, so I don't mind reviewing them though.

[Veeger]

There is another way to try to get around a ban and it happened to me. A guy I corresponded and posted with was banned from a certain forum in the midst of a hot discussion. I continued, so he started emailing telling me what to write. For a time I tried to appease him by rewording some of his expressions and posting his ideas but I quickly realized I was actually helping the guy circumvent his ban. He later had the nerve to get angry at me for not posting his exact words.

We don't correspond any longer.

[Gillianren]

Isn't it against the rules here to post for someone else?

[PetersCreek]

We've got a rule to cover that, too: Rule 7, "Do not post on behalf of other people."

[Veeger]

Technically, I wasn't posting on behalf of him. We both supported the position and his emails were initially of the tone, "you should say this or that" which evolved into, "tell them such and such".

At first I appreciated his ongoing support but eventually realized he was trying make me his proxy.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Veeger

At first I appreciated his ongoing support but eventually realized he was trying make me his proxy.

That's why there's a rule against it, but of course it's a little hard to enforce, when you're just taking their words as support for your own position. You almost have to say, "this is a post from so-and-so that they asked me to post for them" to be considered in violation.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

Rule 10 currently says:

I don't know if this clearly conveys that it doesn't matter if you're trying to have a second personality or conversations with yourself, or whether you currently have a working userid. Considering that a suspension, for whatever reason, becomes an instaban if someone tries to come back during their suspension, I'm wondering if the second sentence should be changed to something like...

Thoughts?

I think this is sensible, Van Rijn. In order to address your additional concerns, raised here, we must also realize that temp banned users can find themselves in a communications quandry when they feel they've been ruled against in error, which gives rise to much sock puppetry, namely, they want to contact the mod staff. Therefore, I recommend, in accordance with 200 years of scientific progress in various fields dealing with behavioral modification, that the way out of this potential conflagration be clearly paved by the following wording:

Users are allowed only one account per person. Do not register under a different username as that will be treated as sock puppetry and will not be tolerated. All such accounts (including the primary one) will be banned without warning. Should you feel a need to contact the moderator staff, use the Contact Us link at the bottom of the homepage.

I threw in some slight rewording for brevity and clarity.

In fact, I agree with Van Rijn quite strongly about this issue, and recommend an immediate rewording of Rule 10 as per the indented paragraph, above.

[mugaliens]

I had intended on reposting a suggestion, here, but realized it's not a rules discussion, but a broader suggestion for dealing with rule-breakers overall, so I left it where it is.

My apologies, and feel free to delete this post.

Thanks.

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

I think this is sensible, Van Rijn. In order to address your additional concerns, raised here, we must also realize that temp banned users can find themselves in a communications quandry when they feel they've been ruled against in error, which gives rise to much sock puppetry, namely, they want to contact the mod staff. Therefore, I recommend, in accordance with 200 years of scientific progress in various fields dealing with behavioral modification, that the way out of this potential conflagration be clearly paved by the following wording:

Users are allowed only one account per person. Do not register under a different username as that will be treated as sock puppetry and will not be tolerated. All such accounts (including the primary one) will be banned without warning. Should you feel a need to contact the moderator staff, use the Contact Us link at the bottom of the homepage.

I threw in some slight rewording for brevity and clarity.

In fact, I agree with Van Rijn quite strongly about this issue, and recommend an immediate rewording of Rule 10 as per the indented paragraph, above.

Agreed and done (with some slight rewording from me as well).

[Chunky]

someone needs to clarify hijacking. other then the Very brief mention of it in rule 13.

because as many times as i read that. i still cant see how i hijacked that thread.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by ToSeek

Agreed and done (with some slight rewording from me as well).

Thanks ToSeek. Thanks also to Mugs, for the suggested wording. That covers my concern nicely.

[Robinson]

A Mod posted -

Originally Posted by Sticks

However you hot linked several images in violation of the forum rules

I have converted them here and in the duplicate thread to normal links. Please bear this in mind in future posting

Somebody made a comment in the thread, but I think discussions about Baut are best done here, not there. So ...

8. Hotlinking

Try to avoid putting in links to images directly from someone else's website. This can add a lot to their bandwidth, and then the host has to pay for it. In other words, if you see an image you like on an astronomy site, put in a link to that site, but don't use the [IMG] tags so the image loads into your post from their site directly. If you really want an image in your post, put it in a public site someplace and link to it from there. One exception would be from sites like NASA or universities, where bandwidth is not such an issue.

My bolding.

Wiki images are free to use, and bandwidth is not a problem there either. Or is it? If sometimes it is OK, from certain sites, then a list of sites needs to be added, and the rule made clear, up front, what is or isn't considered a violation.

"Try to avoid putting in links to images"

How about, don't link to a website that isn't yours, unless it is one of the following sites, which are OK.

Don't insert more than (insert number here) of images in a single post, and don't use more than (insert randomly decided number here) kilobytes of images in a single post, to avoid crashing somebodies browser, who still lives in the stone age.

[Robinson]

Oops. The images in question were from Wikipedia. In case you don't actually follow the link and see the issue.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Robinson

The images in question were from Wikipedia.

You may enjoy or appreciate the 100-some articles in topic Hotlinking images over in the Forum Introductions and Feedback section.

Or not.

You may have checked Wikimedia's current policy: Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia :: Hotlinking

This page assumes you wish to copy individual items for your use. For media files, don't hotlink. Please copy them to your own server.

There is advice there about the copier making making sure the files are freely copyable. They might not be.

Edit: Topic in question: Saturnian Satellite System.

[Robinson]

So you don't know the answer either?

[PetersCreek]

Originally Posted by Robinson

Wiki images are free to use, and bandwidth is not a problem there either. Or is it? If sometimes it is OK, from certain sites, then a list of sites needs to be added, and the rule made clear, up front, what is or isn't considered a violation.

I think the link and quote onesandohs posted makes it quite clear that bandwidth is an issue. While they freely offer their content for use, they do not offer the free and unlimited use of their 300+ servers. In fact, at the link provided, they specifically mention live feeds as a fee-for-service proposition.

Unless it's just a very short list of representative examples, I don't see a great deal of benefit in compiling a list of approved sites and foresee it rapidly becoming an administrative headache to maintain.