I don’t like the way it’s organized. The sections aren’t in any sensible order so far as I can tell. It can’t be an order of importance because threats are at the bottom of the list. Nor is there a table of contents. A table of contents would really help.
Furthermore this is not the agreement new users will see when first registering for an account. New users are directed to these webpages:
As for specific criticisms…
You have one paragraph titled “Prohibited practices” but in actuality there are at least 23 paragraphs that could be described as prohibited practices. (Illegal activity, Betting, Hate speech, Personal insults, jabs in breaking news in MPSIMS, advocacy of harassment/violence/lawbreaking, fundraising appeals, spam, posting of personal information, complaints about the SDMB, excessive posts, trolling/uncivil behavior, hijacks/threadshitting, threadbumping, wishing harm on others, abhorrent views, threats, multiple screen names, vandalism, falsely attributed quotes, implying transgender people are mentally ill, deliberate misgendering.)
I think it would be much better to organize all of the above into a single code of conduct. Preferably each rule would apply to the Pit unless, in the same paragraph, it says it doesn’t. That way we have a single one-stop-shop for any questions about what is or isn’t allowed.
Commasense mentioned redundancy. Some of behavior is prohibited more than once and not necessarily in a consistent way. Here are just a few examples.
-
Hate speech is prohibited three times. First all hateful material is prohibited. Then hate speech directed against any race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or gender is prohibited. Then you say hate speech will not be tolerated.
-
Harassment is prohibited twice, but the second time it is given a definition. I think it should also be clarified that criticizing a member in one Pit thread by linking to his posts in multiple threads does not constitute harassment, despite the Pit thread’s title following the poster from thread to thread. (This linkeage is standard practice and actually encouraged by the fourth special Pit rule: “If you are pitting another poster for a specific post or posts, please include links thereto.”)
-
Two behaviors regarding pornography are prohibited by two distant paragraphs. First we are prohibited from posting pornographic material, then we are prohibited from linking to pornography. However I don’t believe this rule is being enforced as written. The rules as written provide a two-click procedure when linking to nudity and shocking material, but links to pornography are explicitly prohibited regardless. There’s an long-going thread about an admittedly “pornographic webcomic” and a few other threads that link to depictions of sex acts, erotica, etc. My read of the status quo is that so long as the two-click rule is followed, and the primary intention of posting/linking to pornographic material isn’t sexual arousal (“this isn’t Penthouse Forums”/“Penthouse Letters Section”), it’s fine.
-
The rules prohibit threats three times in three places. First we are prohibited from posting threatening material. This is very broad and very vague but I understand it to mean threats of violence, as referenced in the last special Pit rule. Shocking material may be shocking because it is interpreted as a threat, regardless of intent; yet I believe the status quo (see rule on pornography) permits links to such material so long as the two-click rule is followed and, more importantly, there is no intent to threaten anyone.
Then we are prohibited from stating that people deserve harm (includes some threats of violence), but it is recognized that there is some lenience in certain topics. Finally we are forbidden from threatening the SDMB/members/affiliates, including threats of legal action.
Here is something else. I think you intended on prohibiting gross misrepresentation a la Martin_Hyde, jaymac1, etc.:
And here you have clarified that you reserve the right to ban troublesome posters:
But these are both 100% redundant clauses, strictly speaking. You already have a catch-all,
I suggest you change the verbiage for misrepresentation and troublesome posters. “We will revoke the posting privileges of a member who we think grossly misrepresents his or her personal credentials, qualifications, or authority.” “If we think you’re more trouble than you’re worth, we will revoke your posting privileges.” If you are feeling noncommittal you can follow with the word probably.
A non-exhaustive list with a few examples couldn’t hurt. I know arguing that there’s nothing wrong with pedophilia is on the list because of an incident a decade ago involving Cesario. I think it’s safe to assume Nazism and other advocacy for racist eugenics are on the list too.
Finally I’ll note that this revised rule set is inferior to the previous one as it lacks links to forum specific rules, such as the list of tired topics in Great Debates. (I assume you are keeping the list of tired topics.)
~Max