Baiting Rule Discussion

[Sophia7]

I'm starting a new thread to discuss something that Stormy brought up:

Spohia can you get clarification on a possible problem. If a person comes to the progressive section, baits someone, gets flamed and reports that "flame" that action does not seem right. Especially given the fact that the progressive sub forum is independent of the main adventist forum. I am asking this because I don't want the misery they love in the main forum or even the debate forum to spread here.

I know. That could be a problem. There used to be a baiting rule in the old CF rules, and then for a while it was included under the flaming rule. There's nothing about baiting now in the general rules. Do we want to make a rule about that?

http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=39375460#post39375460

Here are a few variations of baiting rules that we used to have at CF:

Baiting where a member harasses another member to the point where he or she might retaliate in a flame.

Asking loaded questions that directly cause flames in response

2.2 No Baiting.
You will not bait other members. "Baiting" is an attempt to anger another member. Baiting includes, but is not limited to:

Making comments designed to elicit responses that violate the rules;
Asking "loaded" questions of another member in an attempt to disguise a flame;
Ridiculing or insulting the beliefs of another member.​

What does everyone think? Should we make such a rule for the PSDA sub-forum, and, if so, how should we word it?

 

[StormyOne]

putting all three of those statements together would work for me....

 

[Sophia7]

OK, so something like this?

Baiting is not allowed in the Progressive SDA Sub-forum. Baiting is an attempt to anger another member. Baiting includes, but is not limited to:

- Asking loaded questions that directly cause flames in response or that attempt to disguise a flame
- Harassing another member to the point where he or she might retaliate in a flame
- Making comments designed to elicit responses that violate forum rules
​

I got rid of the part about ridiculing or insulting the beliefs of other members because I think that would fall under flaming. I also tried to eliminate some of the redundancies. Feel free to make suggestions.

 

[sentipente]

I have no problem with it though I would not even have the rule. I would simply reiterate that Main Forum rules don't apply here and anyone who baits in the Prog subForum does so at his peril.

 

[Sophia7]

Unfortunately, we won't be able to do anything about baiting if we don't have a rule against it. This is one rule that I think we probably need.

 

[freeindeed2]

I think there should definitely be a rule preventing posters from coming in here and baiting other posters so that they can send in a report. It sounds fine to me as you worded it Sophia, as long as we can revisit it if some try to find a way around it.

BTW, this is ridiculous that we have to do this. My vote would just be to take away their computer and access to internet world-wide! LOL!

 

[Sophia7]

I think there should definitely be a rule preventing posters from coming in here and baiting other posters so that they can send in a report. It sounds fine to me as you worded it Sophia, as long as we can revisit it if some try to find a way around it.

We can always revisit the rules and revise them as necessary.

BTW, this is ridiculous that we have to do this. My vote would just be to take away their computer and access to internet world-wide! LOL!

 

[Sophia7]

I'll wait for some more input on this, and then we can either make a poll or just add the rule, I guess, if there seems to be a consensus in the discussion.

 

[moicherie]

I agree with the present wording

 

[Bourbaki]

Baiting is an attempt to anger another member. Baiting includes, but is not limited to:

- Asking loaded questions that directly cause flames in response or that attempt to disguise a flame
- Making comments designed to elicit responses that violate forum rules.​

In other words, you want a rule against anyone asking provocative questions?

 

[Sophia7]

In other words, you want a rule against anyone asking provocative questions?

No, only against questions that would provoke flames or other rule violations.

 

[NightEternal]

I have no problem with it though I would not even have the rule. I would simply reiterate that Main Forum rules don't apply here and anyone who baits in the Prog subForum does so at his peril.

That is all well and good Senti, but I have already had to edit one post made in here due to Woob's whining. It's obvious he has figured out how to get mod action regardless of the fact that the main forum rules don't apply here. So, when he gets his way, I don't see 'peril' as something that will discourage his baiting in the least. He well knows our responses will recieve mod action, so he baits with abandon and glee. He won't stop either you know, because it drives him bananas that he can't micro-manage or control what we say in here. He is peeved and miffed that we declared our subforum independent of his precious main forum rules, and that annoying little thorn in his flesh has not gone away-it never will either until he has cleansed the forum of every last one of us. So baiting and drawing us nearer to an FSB is the next best thing for him. It's his way of saying "How dare you snub my rules!" and exacting his revenge for defying what he wanted implemented right across the board.

Yes, absolutely, get these rules up Sophia and let's nail Woob's hide to the wall the next time he comes in here and provokes a reaction.

 

[Bourbaki]

No, only against questions that would provoke flames or other rule violations.

I stand corrected. You want to punish anyone that makes statements that are too provocative, defined by the over-the-top reactions that they may generate.

 

[freeindeed2]

I stand corrected. You want to punish anyone that makes statements that are too provocative, defined by the over-the-top reactions that they may generate.

We are wanting to prevent someone from coming into the forum, baiting someone, and then reporting the response. It's not about punishment.

 

[NightEternal]

I stand corrected. You want to punish anyone that makes statements that are too provocative, defined by the over-the-top reactions that they may generate.

No, that would be the main forum you are describing.

 

[Bourbaki]

We are wanting to prevent someone from coming into the forum, baiting someone, and then reporting the response.

In other words, if a dumb animal were to impale itself by the pointed testimonies of Ellen White and would whine incessantly, you would want to ban the troublemaker that quoted the Spirit of prophecy? For an offensive list of Ellen White statements, click here.

 

[sentipente]

Bourbaki, this is not even about you so quit it. Stop the Eugene act.

 

[Bourbaki]

Bourbaki, this is not even about you so quit it.

Of course it's about me. Every policy that favors my enemies and attempts to muffle the testimonies of God's Spirit is a direct attack against me.

 

[NightEternal]

Oh brother.

Don't you have something else productive you could be doing right now? Like hunting for Graham Maxwell's head maybe?

No one here believes you are a prophet and no one here cares about your paranoid delusions. Find another forum to cause controversy in, we have other pressing matters on our plates at the moment.

 

[StormyOne]

Of course it's about me. Every policy that favors my enemies and attempts to muffle the testimonies of God's Spirit is a direct attack against me.

must be a slow day over there on that "important" forum.....