# Reorganized SDMB rules **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [July 31, 2022, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reorganized-sdmb-rules/968857 "2022-07-31T04:31:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 11
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2022, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reorganized-sdmb-rules/968857/11 "2022-08-09T00:36:57Z")
> [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > SDMB rules have been reorganized and are restated below. 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: - [Terms of Service - Straight Dope Message Board](https://boards.straightdope.com/tos) - [Privacy - Straight Dope Message Board](https://boards.straightdope.com/privacy) * * * 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. 1. 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. 2. 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.”) 3. 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](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oglaf-appreciation-thread-very-nsfw-hilarious-pornographic-webcomic/516192) about an admittedly “pornographic webcomic” and a few other threads that link to depictions of sex acts, [erotica](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/art-classic-sexy/964758/18), etc. My read of the _status quo_ is that [so long as](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/art-classic-sexy/964758/19) 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](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sucking-eggs-with-your-rectum/90669/17)”/“[Penthouse Letters Section](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-professionals-please/964951/16)”), it’s fine. 4. 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. [Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera!](https://youtu.be/1JHH6iwgIek?t=6) Here is something else. I think you intended on prohibiting gross misrepresentation _a la_ **Martin\_Hyde** , **jaymac1** , etc.: > [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > **Prohibited practices.** […] We reserve the right to revoke the posting privileges of persons misrepresenting themselves on the SDMB. And here you have clarified that you reserve the right to ban troublesome posters: > [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > **Troublesome posters.** If we think you’re more trouble than you’re worth, and you seem unwilling or unable to change your ways, we reserve the right to revoke your posting privileges. But these are both 100% redundant clauses, strictly speaking. You already have a catch-all, > [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > **Rights of posters.** 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. 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_. * * * > [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > **Abhorrent views.** If you express yourself in a way we consider to be beyond the pale of civil discussion, whether in style or substance, we will warn you to stop, specifying what it is we want you to cease doing, on penalty of losing your posting privileges. This rule applies in all forums including the Pit. This is not an attempt to suppress discussion of sensitive topics. We cannot anticipate everything we would consider abhorrent and do not maintain a list of proscribed views. Except in extreme cases we will provide the offending party with a warning before taking any further action. 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](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-ask-the-pedophile-thread/527906/347) 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 --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reorganized-sdmb-rules/968857)._