# Thread: The Science Forum Guidelines

1. The Science Forum Guidelines

1. INTRODUCTION

There has been some question, now and in the past, as to censorship, and the need for 'insulting/flaming' on a science-oriented board versus the maturity and the 'ability to look past political correctness'. The results of that debate has led to the formation of these rules.

View these rules as the rights of the moderators, not their duties. The moderators are free in their choice to warn or edit posts, or conduct their duties. If you feel their actions are not satisfactory, PM the administrator about it. Do not make a post or threat about it. It is not your duty as a member to remind moderators of their duties, or to advice a topic to be moved or closed. If you feel the moderators have missed something, PM them.

The Administration askes you to read these rules and abide by them. This is no dictatorship, but repeated offenders will be punished.

To you new members, perhaps you will find it worthwhile to lurk around for a while and see how members post. There are unwritten rules as well, and knowing how to post can increase the quality of replies in your thread.

2. QUESTIONABLE CONDUCT

The guidelines under this section are the lifelines of the community. They are generally forthflowing from common sense, and will be met with swift retribution when violated. A warning might not apply to the breaking of these rules. Thus, if you are unsure whether or not something goes against the rules, PM a moderator or administrator.

2(a) No posting of pornographic or images of questionable nature; What content is and is not questionable/pornographic is up to the discretion of a moderator. Using common sense, however, goes a long way. PM a moderator whether in doubt.

2(b) No hateful remarks about race, sex, religion, sexual orientation and the like; this includes use of the word 'gay' as a negative word. Pointing out faulty points in one's logic is okay. But try not to connect it to personal traits. Moderators may warn when they feel it is inappropriate or directing the thread in a negative way.

2(c) No discussions which directly or indirectly encourage illegal activity. This includes linking to pirated files, sharing piracy information and trading warez links, but also the endorsement of the actual construction of any sorts of illegal weapons. Though we recognise that the creation of some 'weapons' (also referring to biological agents and others) is easily found on the web, the discussion of experimental construction or planning to construct such expiments is not allowed.

1(d) No racially, sexually or religiously motivated images or text that are deemed, by Moderators, to have great potential to cause personal offense to other users and/or promote prejudice shall be tolerated. Though we encourage breaking taboos, we also hope that you try to adapt your medium. Discussion of the existence of the holocaust is one thing, posting kiddieporn for the sake of provocation another.

3. BASIC GUIDELINES ON TOPIC CREATION

The following are guidelines. Still, misconduct and failing to improve can lead to reduced posted priviliges, or a ban.

3(a) When creating a topic (aka thread), make sure it is posted in the correct section. When in doubt, try the section you feel it is best suited in. If you as a member feel a thread is located in the wrong area, don't post it in the thread. Rather, PM a moderator.

3(b) Formulate the title of the thread properly. Make sure it fits the topic, is to the point, and try to use normal spelling. Don't overuse capitals or exclamation marks.

3(c) When posting a topic, wonder whether the thread is indeed a contribution to the board, and as something new/different/interesting to offer. If it doesn't, it is considered Spam, and moderators may delete it.

3(d) The creation of a thread with the intent purpose of advertising another website is discouraged, especially in the case of 'one-posters', who merely join and post with the intent of advertising.

4. BASIC GUIDELINES ON POSTING

If you follow the rules in Section 2 you should be fine, but there are still some specific things we don't like to see on our forums.

4(a) Don't reply to your own post if you forget to add something, i.e., post two consecutive posts. Instead, edit the initial message. If you need time to think, don't post a "Let me think.." message. Think, than post your message.

4(b) Do not engage in flame wars. Meaning, don't follow members around sections flaming them wherever they go. Fights you had with members on other boards do not concern the administration here. Live with it, swallow it. The breaking of rules will be punished despite of it.

4(c) Do not repeatedly post on the same subject. If members didn't respond the first time you posted it, chances are they'll like it even less the second time around with a new post. If you've made great improvements, at least reply to your original topic. Don't go starting a whole new topic on the exact same subject.

4(d) Do not post the same topic or similiar topic on multiple boards across the forums, most, if not all, will be deleted. If you posted a topic in the wrong forum, contact a Moderator to have it moved.

4(e) Before replying, please ask yourself the following question: "Does my reply offer any significant advice or help contribute to the conversation in any fashion?" If not, do not post it as it will be considered spam.

4(f) Refrain from excessive use of profanity. There are no word filters, so there is no need to experiment what is and what is not possible. Excessive use will be noted and warned against. Again, the verdict is up to a moderators, if you are in risk of a ban, ask the moderators for what you can and can not do, or, even simpler: Don't use profanity at all!

4(g.1) You are responsible for your posts. Make sure you credit the original author(s) if you make a reference, or citation. Though it is not neccesary to use the APA-norm (or similar forms), assuring that people know where they can find the original source is encouraged.
4(g.2) Posts containing large amounts of copied content are discouraged. A small (quoted!) paragraph, with a link to the original source is preferred.

5. REPORTING POSTS

We encourage users to report posts for breaking the above rules, but we ask you to make sure you follow the following pointers.

5(a) If you feel a topic is spam, do not reply to it stating so. Simply ignore it and send a private message to a moderator about it. By replying, you only help keep the spam active.

5(b) Do not flame or in any way insult those who you feel have acted outside of the rules, as you only stoop to their level. Again, ignore the content and inform a Moderator or Administrator via PM.

6. CONTACTING MODERATORS

We do not mind users messaging us about our decisions as Moderators, however we will not tolerate questioning on the forums.

6(a) If you complain about what you feel are shortcomings of the current Moderation team, the topic will most likely be deleted as it will create a topic which is a target for spam and abuse.

7. NICKNAME CHANGING

7(a) Changing your nickname, by fault or simply for a new look can be done by PM-ing an administrator. Be reasonable. Do not expect an administrator to be your personal assistant.

8. BAN

8(a) Repeated or extreme offenses are rewarded with a permanent or temporary ban. Bans are only issued by administrators, and if you feel that you have been mistreated, contact the Administrator through email.

9. DISCLAIMER

9(a) The above rules are subject to change without notice.

9(b) The above rules are guidelines to the administration. They are not rights. If your actions are deemed inappropriate by the administrations, but abide by the rules, do not expect to get away with it.

10(a) You can contact the administrator(s) through PM. Sending Spam, threats or otherwise improper messages will result in consequences.

Follow these rules, use your common sense, and be nice to each other, and everything will be fine. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to PM the administrator(s).

[Alternatively, you can also create a thread in Site Feedback Section]

2.

3. I just read the guide-lines; I like them, in general.

However:

I would that the prohibition against threats were more prominent.

Not specifically, no. We simply want to prevent threads from going off-topic. Besides, the moderators here are of such quality that I suspect such cases will hardly ever occur. It is essential that when they occur, the appropriate people are immediately involved, for which PM is an excellent method.

Mr U

5. Just to be sure, that was "challenging a Mod in a thread" with regard to a mod decision and not opinion about the thread topic, yes?

I wouldn't want the ego that comes with knowing my opinion would be final and binding.

6. I wouldn't want the ego that comes with knowing my opinion would be final and binding. 8)
I doubt I'd noticed the change. But yes, those would be regarding moderator decisions, to for example pin/sticky a topic, or warning a member for spamming.

Mr U

7. I think we seriously need to make/evolve a forum guideline or code of conduct pertaining to the answering of homework problems.

I don't know how big that problem is on the other boards, but we've got several threads just on the first page of the Physics board which look like they are attempts to solicit not advice but complete solutions.

That is a Bad Thing for several obvious reasons, and I think somebody needs to write a few words about it. And I think that somebody needs to pin them on the top of the board with a *sticky* tag. And I think that that somebody shouldn't be me.

8. We could consider an additional forum called, with much originality, HomeWork Help. It would be preceded by a sticky that said something like this:

This portion of the Science Forum is intended to provide an opportunity to ask for help with homework problems. It is not intended to be a source of last minute, panic driven appeals to do your homework for you.

When asking for help it will be very useful if you:
a) State the problem in full.
b) Identify which parts you are having difficulty with.
c) Explain what you have done so far, in detail.

We encourage those responding to your request for help to point you in the right direction, perhaps by asking leading questions, not to do all the work for you.

a) Be patient in waiting for a response. (So it makes sense to put your request in early!)
b) Thank people, even when they have not given a complete answer, or have provided it too late for your immediate need.

Requests for help that fail to follow these guidelines are liable to be deleted or ignored or both.

9. Please note, anyone posting any form of commercial advertisement unrelated to science, or clearly just for the purpose of spamming this forum will be banned. Their posts will be removed.

Thank you.

10. Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
Please note, anyone posting any form of commercial advertisement unrelated to science, or clearly just for the purpose of spamming this forum will be banned. Their posts will be removed.

Thank you.
Damn! I was just about to start advertising my $30 a time replacement auto motor driven by perpetual motion please phone 555 2190 - I guess that's out now then 11. Damn! I was just about to start advertising my$30 a time replacement auto motor driven by perpetual motion please phone 555 2190 - I guess that's out now then [/quote]

For a laugh I phoned that number and a nice young lady asked me if I would be interested in a 'Russian Bride'

12. Nica hot line.....

13. Having read through the guideline and also having participated for a while now, I would like to suggest an addition to the guidelines.

Lately there have been a number of posters who put forth suppositions and when asked for supporting references get very rude/offended/shirty about the matter. I would like to have a section in the guidelines themselves which states plainly "if you make a claim/statement it is up to you to supply references if/when asked. This I think will, if not make life here easier then at least make the ref. requests more enforceable.

14. Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
Having read through the guideline and also having participated for a while now, I would like to suggest an addition to the guidelines.

Lately there have been a number of posters who put forth suppositions and when asked for supporting references get very rude/offended/shirty about the matter. I would like to have a section in the guidelines themselves which states plainly "if you make a claim/statement it is up to you to supply references if/when asked. This I think will, if not make life here easier then at least make the ref. requests more enforceable.
This is a very good suggestion and something all the moderators have been trying to instill on the members. The religion section is somewhat of an exception as the views presented are often just pure opinion and have nothing to do with logic or fact. We may very well want to add this to the guidelines so the moderators have some backing on their suggestions to the members.

15. Hold on a minute, how can you reference a belief? Think about it. I understand certain people have their beliefs (thats relative too) but religion is a very debatable subject you can't just start asking people to back up their claims in religion because we all know the only one to actually do that is mitchellmckain and he has been rigourosuly and extensively educated in religion and going about apporaching it in a professional manner. You can't expect say archeaologist, or GIA, drowsy turtle or even Q to back up their claims because each one of them have their own relative claims and sources and those sources will be relative to each other and some may claim one thing is reliable and somethings not. For instance something logical being used as a back up to a claim to Q put forth by Q will be alright for Q but say Archeaologist will see that as ignroant and stupid. Likewise when archeaologist does the same Q will see the same light.

What you are suggesting is asking religious people or people with religious beliefs or claims on religion is for them to conform to the rules of scientists, which is mostly composed of atheists. Or rather the scientific method in that nothing without evidence is logically not there or rather something empirical and observable without is not viable, asking to make people who have beliefs to back up a claim is technically asking them to adhere to the scientific method and apply that to religious thinking. Which isn't going to work because religion isn't scientists. Therefore it is bias in that religious people will have to follow the laws and rules and procedures of what most atheists do, aka scientific rationale.

OBVIOUSLY seeing it that way you can tell it will go down well and nice for atheists but not for theists. Besides if all religious debaters where like the ideal mitchellmckain there would be no activity in the religion sub forum because no one challenges mitchellmckain as near as much as say GIA or Archeaologist.

Introducing that law is like introducing speed cameras, people are going to speed regardless of if they get fines.

I suggest a poll first off, not one newbies reccommendations. This matter is going to be strongly opposed I can see it. Not like anyone is going to follow the rules blatently IS you know they won't because many don't. Personally no offense but religion is not science and it is not a science itself so putting it in a science forum was bound to create the tensions and hostility it does when 'rational' science thinkers will challenge religious people.

But do and say as you like, just bare in mind most theists gets 'shirty' about the manner because they feel they want to 'save your soul' or stuff like that or 'you must believe what I believe for your own good'.

What rule should be introduced is this:

"Where tensions are mount and a debate requires empircal evidence or anything observable to be produced to assert a claim put forth by an atheist or theist, then if there is oppositition to presenting that evidence by either party both parties will attempt to understand each others perspectives in a mature and professionally humain way and drop the matter; whatever opinions are formed by either parties after this refusual to present evidence is of the parties and the parties alone.

However, if either party then attempts to persist with demanding the support to the claim in a vulgar or brash offensive manner that could clearly escalate the debate into a 'flaming session' then both parties must be aware that there disucssion encroaches other sections of the forum guidelines then they are obliged to take responsibilities for their actions thereafter".

In a nutshell; common courtesy.

16. I'm not making the suggestion because of the current issues in the Religion subforum.

I have on a number of occasions in the biology geology and pseudoscience subforums interacted with people who get very annoyed when they are asked to back up statements with actual references. If someone makes the statement saying, oohhh:

"I read that they now think expanding earth theory is more valid then plate tectonics"

Then they should be responsible for providing actual supporting references rather then

and then getting pissy when pressed.

This is first and foremost a science forum and one of the key ideas in science if you make a claim you should damn well be prepared to back it up with something.

As IS points out there is a push to follow that objective in the! forum. I for one think it will help to have this point included in the guidelines

17. I for one have made it a requirement in Biology that if challenged for a source, you provide one, and mention it in my sticky moderation thread in that forum. This is not something "one newbie" brought up and as Paleoichneum said it is most certainly not limited to Religion.

18. Originally Posted by Bad Wolf
I suggest a poll first off, not one newbies reccommendations. .
Tactical error. Any valid points you may have made will be ignored because you have unfairly and inaccurately dismissed the views of a valued member of the forum. (Someone who does not have the annoying habit of having their name changed periodically.)

19. I have a question that I do not see being addressed under the forum rules.

Am I allowed to "re-post" some of post content on this forums onto another forum? I will always credit the original author's username, and not claim them as my own.

I was wondering if that is allowed?

20. Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
The Science Forum Guidelines

1. INTRODUCTION

There has been some question, now and in the past, as to censorship, and the need for 'insulting/flaming' on a science-oriented board versus the maturity and the 'ability to look past political correctness'. The results of that debate has led to the formation of these rules.

View these rules as the rights of the moderators, not their duties. The moderators are free in their choice to warn or edit posts, or conduct their duties. If you feel their actions are not satisfactory, PM the administrator about it. Do not make a post or threat about it. It is not your duty as a member to remind moderators of their duties, or to advice a topic to be moved or closed. If you feel the moderators have missed something, PM them.

The Administration askes you to read these rules and abide by them. This is no dictatorship, but repeated offenders will be punished.

To you new members, perhaps you will find it worthwhile to lurk around for a while and see how members post. There are unwritten rules as well, and knowing how to post can increase the quality of replies in your thread.

2. QUESTIONABLE CONDUCT

The guidelines under this section are the lifelines of the community. They are generally forthflowing from common sense, and will be met with swift retribution when violated. A warning might not apply to the breaking of these rules. Thus, if you are unsure whether or not something goes against the rules, PM a moderator or administrator.

2(a) No posting of pornographic or images of questionable nature; What content is and is not questionable/pornographic is up to the discretion of a moderator. Using common sense, however, goes a long way. PM a moderator whether in doubt.

2(b) No hateful remarks about race, sex, religion, sexual orientation and the like; this includes use of the word 'gay' as a negative word. Pointing out faulty points in one's logic is okay. But try not to connect it to personal traits. Moderators may warn when they feel it is inappropriate or directing the thread in a negative way.

2(c) No discussions which directly or indirectly encourage illegal activity. This includes linking to pirated files, sharing piracy information and trading warez links, but also the endorsement of the actual construction of any sorts of illegal weapons. Though we recognise that the creation of some 'weapons' (also referring to biological agents and others) is easily found on the web, the discussion of experimental construction or planning to construct such expiments is not allowed.

1(d) No racially, sexually or religiously motivated images or text that are deemed, by Moderators, to have great potential to cause personal offense to other users and/or promote prejudice shall be tolerated. Though we encourage breaking taboos, we also hope that you try to adapt your medium. Discussion of the existence of the holocaust is one thing, posting kiddieporn for the sake of provocation another.

3. BASIC GUIDELINES ON TOPIC CREATION

The following are guidelines. Still, misconduct and failing to improve can lead to reduced posted priviliges, or a ban.

3(a) When creating a topic (aka thread), make sure it is posted in the correct section. When in doubt, try the section you feel it is best suited in. If you as a member feel a thread is located in the wrong area, don't post it in the thread. Rather, PM a moderator.

3(b) Formulate the title of the thread properly. Make sure it fits the topic, is to the point, and try to use normal spelling. Don't overuse capitals or exclamation marks.

3(c) When posting a topic, wonder whether the thread is indeed a contribution to the board, and as something new/different/interesting to offer. If it doesn't, it is considered Spam, and moderators may delete it.

3(d) The creation of a thread with the intent purpose of advertising another website is discouraged, especially in the case of 'one-posters', who merely join and post with the intent of advertising.

4. BASIC GUIDELINES ON POSTING

If you follow the rules in Section 2 you should be fine, but there are still some specific things we don't like to see on our forums.

4(a) Don't reply to your own post if you forget to add something, i.e., post two consecutive posts. Instead, edit the initial message. If you need time to think, don't post a "Let me think.." message. Think, than post your message.

4(b) Do not engage in flame wars. Meaning, don't follow members around sections flaming them wherever they go. Fights you had with members on other boards do not concern the administration here. Live with it, swallow it. The breaking of rules will be punished despite of it.

4(c) Do not repeatedly post on the same subject. If members didn't respond the first time you posted it, chances are they'll like it even less the second time around with a new post. If you've made great improvements, at least reply to your original topic. Don't go starting a whole new topic on the exact same subject.

4(d) Do not post the same topic or similiar topic on multiple boards across the forums, most, if not all, will be deleted. If you posted a topic in the wrong forum, contact a Moderator to have it moved.

4(e) Before replying, please ask yourself the following question: "Does my reply offer any significant advice or help contribute to the conversation in any fashion?" If not, do not post it as it will be considered spam.

4(f) Refrain from excessive use of profanity. There are no word filters, so there is no need to experiment what is and what is not possible. Excessive use will be noted and warned against. Again, the verdict is up to a moderators, if you are in risk of a ban, ask the moderators for what you can and can not do, or, even simpler: Don't use profanity at all!

4(g.1) You are responsible for your posts. Make sure you credit the original author(s) if you make a reference, or citation. Though it is not neccesary to use the APA-norm (or similar forms), assuring that people know where they can find the original source is encouraged.
4(g.2) Posts containing large amounts of copied content are discouraged. A small (quoted!) paragraph, with a link to the original source is preferred.

5. REPORTING POSTS

We encourage users to report posts for breaking the above rules, but we ask you to make sure you follow the following pointers.

5(a) If you feel a topic is spam, do not reply to it stating so. Simply ignore it and send a private message to a moderator about it. By replying, you only help keep the spam active.

5(b) Do not flame or in any way insult those who you feel have acted outside of the rules, as you only stoop to their level. Again, ignore the content and inform a Moderator or Administrator via PM.

6. CONTACTING MODERATORS

We do not mind users messaging us about our decisions as Moderators, however we will not tolerate questioning on the forums.

6(a) If you complain about what you feel are shortcomings of the current Moderation team, the topic will most likely be deleted as it will create a topic which is a target for spam and abuse.

7. NICKNAME CHANGING

7(a) Changing your nickname, by fault or simply for a new look can be done by PM-ing an administrator. Be reasonable. Do not expect an administrator to be your personal assistant.

8. BAN

8(a) Repeated or extreme offenses are rewarded with a permanent or temporary ban. Bans are only issued by administrators, and if you feel that you have been mistreated, contact the Administrator through email.

9. DISCLAIMER

9(a) The above rules are subject to change without notice.

9(b) The above rules are guidelines to the administration. They are not rights. If your actions are deemed inappropriate by the administrations, but abide by the rules, do not expect to get away with it.

10(a) You can contact the administrator through PM, or email (HomoUniversalis@Gmail.com). Sending Spam, threats or otherwise improper messages will result in consequences.

Follow these rules, use your common sense, and be nice to each other, and everything will be fine. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to PM/email the administrator.

all this goes for you and the mods too right

21. Let's add one more Guideline.

11. Quoting

Don't quote massive amounts of text to make one meaningless comment.

22. Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

11. Quoting

Don't quote massive amounts of text to make one meaningless comment.
and you be the first to use #11

23. Originally Posted by mrsmart
all this goes for you and the mods too right
which point are you trying to make, exactly ?

24. Originally Posted by marnixR
Originally Posted by mrsmart
all this goes for you and the mods too right
which point are you trying to make, exactly ?
you seem to be stuck on this thread i just came from mathematics and i am heading to general discussion

25. Thank you, and yes I have now read all the rules

26. New guy here.
Somehow just reading those rules makes me wanna troll. Clearly I have spent to much time on 4chan. I will be good. I want to stay.

27. Personal observation at times seems to fall outside the parameters of the scientific rule of providing proof or documentation of some subjects. If someone requires proof of a subject that might not been addressed by the forum, or has not a stamp of approval by the scientific fraternity, it is generally deemed useless, and dismissed as none contributing to the forum.

The forum must state that it is imperative that individual observations are not permissible, or allow a segment of the forum to address these observations and specify them as personal observations.

Most people are not scientists and want to know about their own experiences and observations. Collective observations are more in line when someone can verify what they have observed through another person. I have often heard that my observations cannot be seen as relevant because the scientific world cannot verify my observations, yet I have experienced it and want to discuss it with scientists.

Sometimes some moderators are used to one type of response, if the format changes they are left with suspending you because as they see it you are at fault.
As I see it, one of the main contributors to misunderstanding is the diversity of cultures. It would be somewhat going in the right direction if the topic would be censored and not the person from a different culture.

Science is about observation; one can arrive at a result from any perspective, depending on what one wants to know. Some moderators want to answer every question, more often they do not have the ability or the resources to follow the thread owing to the lack of cultural experience, which also can lead to suspension. Some do not want to even try to follow the topic, and jumps in even when you are getting along fine with other inquiring minds.

28. What nonsense.

29. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
What nonsense.
As you seem to have the answers to everything please explain why you think my observation makes no sence.

30. Originally Posted by Therapy
As you seem to have the answers to everything please explain why you think my observation makes no sence.
Sure:

Originally Posted by Therapy
Personal observation at times seems to fall outside the parameters of the scientific rule of providing proof or documentation of some subjects.

No it doesn't: provided it is corroborated.

If someone requires proof of a subject that might not been addressed by the forum, or has not a stamp of approval by the scientific fraternity, it is generally deemed useless, and dismissed as none contributing to the forum.
A single observation is subject to numerous sources of error. That is why a single observation is not acceptable as "proof".

The forum must state that it is imperative that individual observations are not permissible, or allow a segment of the forum to address these observations and specify them as personal observations.
Um, are you claimg that a personal observation shouldn't be "specified" as a personal observation?

Most people are not scientists and want to know about their own experiences and observations.
What?

yet I have experienced it and want to discuss it with scientists.
Because your, single, personal observation, despite what you may think, is unreliable AS evidence. Your memory alters after the fact, you may omit relevant detail, you may be unaware of relevant detail. There will almost certainly be errors in the reporting.

Sometimes some moderators are used to one type of response, if the format changes they are left with suspending you because as they see it you are at fault.
Examples please. This appears to be an unjustified accusation.

As I see it, one of the main contributors to misunderstanding is the diversity of cultures.
What does reliability of observation and reporting have to do with cultures?

It would be somewhat going in the right direction if the topic would be censored and not the person from a different culture.
Again, have you any evidence that this "censorship" is due to culture? I suggest that it's due to the fact that this is a science board, based on science and using (as far as possible) the scientific method. Which does not regard a single, subjective reported observation as evidence.

Science is about observation; one can arrive at a result from any perspective, depending on what one wants to know.
"From any perspectieve"? Really?

Some moderators want to answer every question, more often they do not have the ability or the resources to follow the thread owing to the lack of cultural experience, which also can lead to suspension.
And again you want to blame "cultural differences".

Some do not want to even try to follow the topic, and jumps in even when you are getting along fine with other inquiring minds.
Can you provide any support for your claims of what appear to be moderator bias?

31. Dywyddyr
You really should work on your people skills

32. Nah, people should work on their rationality.

33. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Nah, people should work on their rationality.
There are so many of you out there that lack politeness and conversation skills. Most of the conversation takes on a sort of confrontational front and the discussion looses its potentials of developing into something satisfying and educating.

Every question makes sense, at least to the one asking the question. If one cannot answer the question, there should be no problem, all one have to do is probe a little and make conversation without diminishing the value of the discussion. Trust me everyone can learn something, and everyone has a rational reason for everything, although every one do not have access to good communication skills.

It is so terrifying when pomposity and arrogance moves in to rob us of meaningful dialog; I really hope someday we will be able to leave that behind.

34. Yeees.

and everyone has a rational reason for everything

Blatantly false.
There may, however, be rationalised reasons.

35. let me try it

36. Yes, I have a question. As I do not wish to break the rules of the Forum.

If a member is banned and they ask you to pass a message (nothing nasty or ANYTHING like that) to another forum member, is this against the rules.

If done in a PM.

Hope this isn't a stupid question.

Mahalo!

37. I think it is a good question. some forums are picky about that sort of thing and others aren't.

38. a bit strange though - if the banned person can send you a PM, why not send it straight to the intended member ?
but apart from that, if a person is only banned from the open forum and can still send PMs, then i don't see why that line of communication would be frowned upon; it would only be if a banned person asked another member to post something on their behalf that there might be a possible conflict of interest

39. Originally Posted by marnixR
a bit strange though - if the banned person can send you a PM, why not send it straight to the intended member ?
but apart from that, if a person is only banned from the open forum and can still send PMs, then i don't see why that line of communication would be frowned upon; it would only be if a banned person asked another member to post something on their behalf that there might be a possible conflict of interest
In my case, personal email addresses have been exchanged between myself and some other members. I even have one member's phone number. So it would be possible for me to request those members to pass on messages to members who's direct contact information I do not have. That is probably what Babe is referring to.

40. Just a thought here, but it could possibly be a good idea if members were aware of another forum where they could then contact each other, should they actually get banned, rather than asking other members to act as their go betweens. Though most people here are polite and friendly enough to help out their fellow members it can seem reminiscent of being back in school passing messages on a 'friends' behalf.

41. If someone is sending someone else a PM, there would be no way we'd even know about it, unless the recipient would complain. If you're sure it's nothing the recipient will complain about, I'd say go ahead.

42. Originally Posted by marnixR
a bit strange though - if the banned person can send you a PM, why not send it straight to the intended member ?
but apart from that, if a person is only banned from the open forum and can still send PMs, then i don't see why that line of communication would be frowned upon; it would only be if a banned person asked another member to post something on their behalf that there might be a possible conflict of interest
No, just a bit of information the other poster was interested in.

Excuse my ignorance, but if you are banned can you even read in here? Most places it's lights out! Where I am a moderator (NOT ON THIS FORUM), if you are banned you are unable to access for the amount of time of the banning.

I think Seagypsy probably said it best.
Thanks Seagypsy.
Thanks MarnixR!

I'm just trying to abide by the rules of the forum, which is why I asked.

43. Originally Posted by Harold14370
If someone is sending someone else a PM, there would be no way we'd even know about it, unless the recipient would complain. If you're sure it's nothing the recipient will complain about, I'd say go ahead.

44. Originally Posted by babe
Originally Posted by marnixR
a bit strange though - if the banned person can send you a PM, why not send it straight to the intended member ?
but apart from that, if a person is only banned from the open forum and can still send PMs, then i don't see why that line of communication would be frowned upon; it would only be if a banned person asked another member to post something on their behalf that there might be a possible conflict of interest
No, just a bit of information the other poster was interested in.

Excuse my ignorance, but if you are banned can you even read in here? Most places it's lights out! Where I am a moderator (NOT ON THIS FORUM), if you are banned you are unable to access for the amount of time of the banning.

I think Seagypsy probably said it best.
Thanks Seagypsy.
Thanks MarnixR!

I'm just trying to abide by the rules of the forum, which is why I asked.
You can read most of the threads without even signing in. So even if you are banned you can read the forum. Unless you act so badly that they ban your ip. If that happens you won't even be able to read the forum.

what you can't see without being signed in is the trash can, and the chat box. You also cannot message anyone other than the admin and that is through the contact us link at the bottom of every page. If you are banned and you sign in, it will block you from everything. But as I said, logging out will make the threads available for reading, but not participation. You also cannot see many of the member profiles if they have them set to only visible to members.

45. Originally Posted by seagypsy
Originally Posted by babe
Originally Posted by marnixR
a bit strange though - if the banned person can send you a PM, why not send it straight to the intended member ?
but apart from that, if a person is only banned from the open forum and can still send PMs, then i don't see why that line of communication would be frowned upon; it would only be if a banned person asked another member to post something on their behalf that there might be a possible conflict of interest
No, just a bit of information the other poster was interested in.

Excuse my ignorance, but if you are banned can you even read in here? Most places it's lights out! Where I am a moderator (NOT ON THIS FORUM), if you are banned you are unable to access for the amount of time of the banning.

I think Seagypsy probably said it best.
Thanks Seagypsy.
Thanks MarnixR!

I'm just trying to abide by the rules of the forum, which is why I asked.
You can read most of the threads without even signing in. So even if you are banned you can read the forum. Unless you act so badly that they ban your ip. If that happens you won't even be able to read the forum.

what you can't see without being signed in is the trash can, and the chat box. You also cannot message anyone other than the admin and that is through the contact us link at the bottom of every page. If you are banned and you sign in, it will block you from everything. But as I said, logging out will make the threads available for reading, but not participation. You also cannot see many of the member profiles if they have them set to only visible to members.
Thanks for taking the time to explain that to me. Where I am a Moderator, your IP is banned. It's a blank page for you. I appreciate your taking the time to explain. Mahalo.

46. hi. how do you start a new thread? (Im new here.)

hi. how do you start a new thread? (Im new here.)
Go to the appropraite section of the forum (e.g. General Discussion) and click the New Thread button.

48. Thanks.

49. Most. Prolific. Spammer. Ever.

50. Clearly testing to try to find the magic post number before links are allowed

51. I don't suppose you'll stop if I offer you a cookie?

52. If I may jump in here. It would be a mistake to expect Dywyddyr to modify his script in the hopes that this would some how elevate any discussion. An acerbic wit properly applied can season an argument and shed new light on what may run the risk of developing into a simple stale exchange of opinions. In addition, I have found that opponents that resort to such cheap shots reveal so much more of their personality (or lack thereof). So by all means let us thicken our hides a bit and relish the low brow salt in the conversational soup.

53. Why did you post this trolling attack of another members posting style in a thread they haven't contributed to since April? Whatever problems you have with the duck keep them to the relevant thread, a "cheap shot" like your post above in a sticky thread is frankly childish.

54. Originally Posted by polyastra
If I may jump in here. It would be a mistake to expect Dywyddyr to modify his script in the hopes that this would some how elevate any discussion. An acerbic wit properly applied can season an argument and shed new light on what may run the risk of developing into a simple stale exchange of opinions. In addition, I have found that opponents that resort to such cheap shots reveal so much more of their personality (or lack thereof). So by all means let us thicken our hides a bit and relish the low brow salt in the conversational soup.
Alternatively you could try posting something with substance, as opposed to vague unsupported claims.

55. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by polyastra
If I may jump in here. It would be a mistake to expect Dywyddyr to modify his script in the hopes that this would some how elevate any discussion. An acerbic wit properly applied can season an argument and shed new light on what may run the risk of developing into a simple stale exchange of opinions. In addition, I have found that opponents that resort to such cheap shots reveal so much more of their personality (or lack thereof). So by all means let us thicken our hides a bit and relish the low brow salt in the conversational soup.
Alternatively you could try posting something with substance, as opposed to vague unsupported claims.
I just adore Sir Ducky and I get his wit. He doesn't offend me.

SO lay off of him or you'll have a redhead to contend with!

56. this web site is my aspiration , really good style and design and perfect written content . |

57. Forgot to add the question mark, Daffy.
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
What nonsense.

58. this message should be in a prominent place on every forum where there's arguments about free speech (that' 99.99% of them then) :

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement