Now, I have no problems asking people not to be a jerk. And I have no problem with any of the rules of the agreement. They’re very good and useful rules. However, I don’t really like the idea of calling this our “one basic rule”. For instance, sock puppets, as long as they’re publicly declared and not used for any evil purposes, do not strike me as jerky behavior. The same with posting a link to a site you have a financial interest in, as long as you’re not annoying about it.
The bottom line is that there’s not just one rule here. The registration agreement can’t be summed up in one line. However, that first sentence always gives me the impression that it can. I worry that new users will think the same thing. It’s kinda funny, and kinda poetic, but in my opinion, kinda misleading. Maybe it would be better to say, “Our first rule: Don’t be a jerk.”
Whew. Okay, I don’t expect the administration to change anything just because of my comment, but I did want to get it off my chest. It’s been bothering me for almost three years. Thanks.
I’ve always looked on it as the one, basic rule of “Don’t be a Jerk”, then further broken down into all the different behaviours which really add up to “jerkdom” because they contravene common practice, and the way the board works.
Granted, it doesn’t stop the practice of “jerkness” happening in here, but it’s a good start.
Just out of intertest, what do you consider evil and what sort of sock puppetry would you say would be harmless. I’ve only ever seen it done to bolster a losing argument.
We did have obvious, humorous, sock puppets that were harmless but still not allowed. I think one was the SDMB Serial Killer or the Dead Equine, etc. The ban on sock puppetry put a quick end to those, because the management (rightfully) wanted a hard and fast rule, rather than a rule that is open to judgement. Not all sock puppets are evil, some can be fun.
I don’t know much about sock puppets, and in particular, I have no idea how they are used, though I trust Chesesteak on this matter. But I don’t see anything ipso facto evil about them. Using them to bolster an argument, as you suggest, would necessitate their nature being kept a secret, but as I said in the OP, that’s not what I had in mind.
I wasn’t aware of this case when I posted the OP, but in the thread Salt peter question, the OP (Beckyvs) took on another name (StaffSgt) and posted to the same thread. You can see this about 30 posts in. She did not act like a different person, and indeed it is quite clear reading her post that it is the OP talking again - no trickery involved.
I think the way Ice Wolf approaches this statement it’s tantamount to “We have one basic rule: follow the rules.” which you can tell is patently unhelpful.
I interpret it as being sort of like law vs. case law: The law passed by the legislature might be unclear in points, as to its actual application. Whenever an unclear situation comes up, it comes before the courts, which make a ruling. That ruling is then published and becomes part of case law, so later folks know how the law is to be applied.
So, our basic law is “Don’t be a jerk”. There are some questions about what constitutes “being a jerk”, which get ruled on when they come up. For instance, the administrators decided that having a sockpuppet constitutes being a jerk. This decision is then published in the registration agreement, so that anyone who reads it (as everyone should, if they’re registering here) knows that it’s considered jerkish and not allowed.
I think they should have added the word ‘harmful’, in this list:
“You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the SDMB to post any material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person’s privacy, or otherwise violative of any law…”
But this kinda of says it all Achernar:
“Please remember that you are our guest here, and that we reserve the right to exclude you at our whim, for any or no reason whatsoever…”