• A new LGBTQ+ forum is now being trialed and there have been changes made to the Support and Advice forum. To read more about these updates, click here.
  • Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

The New Soap Box Rules (or lack of thereof)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fig

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
12,782
Reaction score
1,046
As some of you may have seen, some changes have been made to the Bulbagarden Infractions system.

As you probably weren't aware, both evkl and I were rather unhappy with the experiment of the former rule system with its infractions and all that jazz. On a forum like the Soap Box, we need both to give users the leeway they need to express their opinion, and the ability to prevent abuses of that freedom.

With that in mind, we're switching to a very different rule system, that apply only to the Soap Box, and with sentences that apply only in the Soap Box (you will generally not be banned from the rest of Bulbagarden for missteps in the Soap Box)


This rule system will consist of three rules.

The Three Rules
1. If a moderator tells you to stop doing something, you stop. If you don't stop, you may be banned from viewing or posting in the Soap Box.
2. A moderator may at any time close, edit or delete threads or posts if they feel it is necessary to maintain order in the forum.
3. If you disagree with something a moderator has done (either telling you to stop something, or closing/editing/deleting your posts or threads), contact evkl or myself (Evil Figment) about it. We will review together the situation and decide whether or not to reverse the original decision.

Of course, we all like having a good idea what we're doing, and what's likely to anger the mods. To that end, we've prepared a list of principles. Consider them rights that every user has; it's how you should be treated by the others, and how the others should be treated by you. If a mod feels that something you are doing goes against another user's rights, he'll tell you to quit it.

The Seven Principles (aka the Soap Box Bill of Rights)
1. Members are entitled to their opinions, even controversial ones, and to posting them.
2. Members are entitled to make relevant criticism of other users during a debate.
3. Members are entitled to the basic courtesy of reasonably readable posts.
4. Members are entitled to not being victim of deliberate attempts at antagonizing them, or threats of violence
5. Members and their opinions are entitled to not being referred to by insulting nicknames.
6. Members are entitled to a discussion free of insulting or demeaning generalizations.
7. Members are entitled to having their fellow posters respect the original topic of threads they create.
 
Last edited:
The Ryuutakeshi post of approval (not that it was needed)

Good structure. I don't really see any loopholes in it or anything. Well done.

Oh, and it's fair.
 
For the purpose of explaining a little just what these are supposed to say...

Commentary on the Principles

1. Members are entitled to their opinions, even controversial ones, and to posting them.

Is fairly straightforward. You have a right to holding your opinion, and a right to posting it. So long, of course, as you don't wind up violating someone else's rights along the way. Telling other users to shut up is pretty much the antithesis of this principle (as far as what users can do).

2. Members are entitled to make relevant criticism of other users during a debate.

Means by extension that you are not protected against all insultsé Sometime, in a debate, there are few or no non-insulting way to say something that absolutely have to be said, and we want to make it clear such use of insults is permitted. Note, however, relevant. Asking someone who has just misinterpreted three post of yours in a row "Are you dense" is arguably relevant. Telling someone that he has no sense of decency is a lot more questionable. Calling someone a Nazi (but not a grammar-nazi) usually is not. (Unless they have a swastika on their profile and are preaching to kill all jews, but then they'd have to worry about a lot more than being called Nazi. Like the permanent ban that's about to hit them.)

3. Members are entitled to the basic courtesy of reasonably readable posts.

Doesn't mean that we ask for perfect grammar or spelling. That would be silly. It means that we have a grudge against threads tyPeD lIKe ThiS or ones TYPED LIKE THIS, or posters who refuse to use even basic paragraphing and just post one big huge wall of text without any separation. It's just disrespectful, and it's no fun for anybody.

4. Members are entitled to not being victim of deliberate attempts at antagonizing them, or threats of violence

The first half is pretty simple: you shouldn't be going out of your way to make other users angry. If someone put a reasonable request before you regarding something that makes them angry (maybe it's a word they don't like), you should try to honor that request. If you don't honor it, you should have a good reason for not honoring it. ("But I like that word" isn't a particularly good reason). The second half means "I wish (another poster) would get beat up/raped/killed/etc (or anything insinuating the same) will get you in trouble. "Killed" may be considered an extreme case and get you banned from Bulbagarden outright if evkl decides the post is serious enough. As usual, this STILL applies to the President of the United States on top of everyone else.

With regard to the second half, we'll go off the general assumption that members of most every major contemporary western political ideology families (liberals, conservatives, etc,), and every ethnic group post here. So "Conservatives should just go and die" amount to saying a LOT of your fellow members should die. Ditto Jews/Arabs/Muslim/Christians/etc.


5. Members and their opinions are entitled to not being referred to by insulting nicknames.

This is the old "Pro-Life/Pro-Choice, not Anti-Choice/Pro-Death" rule - using insulting little names for opinions and political stances you dislike isntead of their proper names gets old, really fast (this would probably cover the "Democrat Party" (let alone "Demoncrat") thing, as well as stray reference to "Repugnicans"). It also extend to giving other users insulting nicknames (callign someone dense is not an insulting nickname. Insulting little pet names are what we'd like you not to use. (Mind, if the person you've nicknamed like the nickname, then that's fine)

6. Members are entitled to a discussion free of insulting or demeaning generalizations.

Yeah, you know how that works. This also includes roundabout generalizations, eg calling a thread a "Conservative hater convention" amount to a generalization that the posters in it are conservative haters. Of course, generalizations that are demonstrably true, or generally accepted in public discourse are fine. EG, "KKK members are racist pigs" won't land you in trouble. "Blacks are stupid and lazy" would likely get you in very hot water, though.

7. Members are entitled to having their fellow posters respect the original topic of threads they create.

Keep things mostly on-topic. We don't mind a thread slowly shifting from one topic to another related topic. We do mind somebody dropping out of the blue a rant that's only tangentially related and that's almost sure to take over the thread. A thread about somebody screaming "Heil Hitler" at a man describing a socialized healthcare system (from Israel) is NOT a thread about whether or not the Jews should get over the holocaust; you would do better to make a new thread if you want to discuss the later.
 
It's amazing how linking a member to a thread here has led to the creation of rules. Still it was a long time coming, first time I was here, I was thinking on how this place was barely even looked upon. XD

Edit: Does the Necromancing rule apply here too? :O

It's kinda redundant to have the same thread of the same topic though. :/
 
Last edited:
These rules appear fair, I have my concerns, but meh. 'Long as the rules are applied to everyone fairly I have no worries~
 
Just a mild update to the interpretation stuff...

Violence doesn't necessarily have to mean hitting someone, or shooting someone (or raping someone). There are other forms of violence. Forced removal of a people is a form of violence. Exile is a form of violence. Imprisonment is a form of violence. And while sometime they may be legitimate reasons to wish for any of them (eg, wishing for the imprisonment of a criminal), and we will allow people to do that, we absolutely will not stand for broad calls for the imprisonment/exile/forced removal of groups that have members of Bulbagarden.

This includes liberals and conservatives, straights and gays, whites and blacks, etc. "Group X should be moved to some island somewhere and out of our country" is something we will not stand for.

We consider this an important part of the minimal respect of your fellow members that posting in the Soap Box requires.
 
What about sources? I've noticed quite a few users making claims and not backing them up. It doesn't make for good debates, in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom