The Rules of Respect and MW Guidelines

[mol]

The Rules of Respect and MW Guidelines

1. Keep the language PG-rated, as many minors post here. "Crap" works when you want to say "shit", for example. Same goes for image files...a funny pic is fine, but porn is unacceptable. Do not post any obscene, vulgar, or sexually-explicit material here. If it can't go on public TV, it can't go here. Do not try to use NYPD Blue or Nip/Tuck as a way to argue about this rule. We have a word filter in place that has been in place for years. Do not try going around the word filter to display words that we are filtering out...and we mean that literally. Do NOT go around the word filter to display the ACTUAL WORDS we are filtering out. The filter replaces these so-called 'bad words' with other words and the words we use to replace them with change often purely for my amusement (mol).

2. Debate the idea, don't attack the poster. Calling someone "neocon filth"/"Liberal traitor"/"Fluffy bunny"/"idiot"/"dumbass"/"moron"/"crackpot"/"conservative arsehole"/"big loser", actually, any name-calling whatsoever is not a refutation of an idea, it's a verbal (yah, yah...typed, written, etc) attack of another member of this community and it will not be tolerated. Notice that we are talking about verbal attacks between members. You are free to call, for example, George Bush...a big loser, until the time comes when Mr. Bush joins the community. Then he must be respected like every other member. Also, no condescending stuff. Calling someone sweetypie, honeybunch, hun, missy, might just be the way you talk, but it can also imply a condescending tone. We have no way of knowing which way you are using the term...so if you are addressing someone directly, just use their username.

3. Racism, sexism, age discrimination, the outright bashing of a path or religion, etc is unacceptable. Debating the tenets of a religion is one thing...calling all Christians evil or saying that all Pagans are going to hell is not allowed. Proselytizing is not allowed in any form. No conversion or 'witnessing' is allowed. We are not here to spread our various religions. We are here to be friends, love and respect each other, and most importantly...learn. Tolerance is key. All religions and Paths are welcome here providing their tenets do not violate any laws or our rules. Calling someones religion "false", no matter how wrong or silly it may seem to you is not allowed.

4. No spam, advertisements, or anything of that nature is permitted via posts/PM's/or emails, unless you pay advertising fees to mysticwicks. Freeload off of someone else. Spammers are banned instantly and you won't be notified.

5. The ignore function should be used. Keep the flames to PMs, and/or put people who annoy you on ignore. Seriously. Use the ignore feature. If someone is sending you PM's that you do not like then place them on ignore and they can't send you PM's anymore. It's very simple. If someone is harassing/stalking you then PM or email an admin immediately.

6. Public posting/forwarding of PMs, karma pokes, or emails (through the site) is forbidden without the consent of the other party(s) involved unless you are sending this information to an admin to prove harassment, etc. This is private information and should be kept private.

7. Joking around is okay, but you are at the mercy of the person you are joking with. Calling your friend a "tard" is fine, provided he/she isn't offended. Please try to work out any differences of opinion on this matter via PM before reporting. YOUR next joke may inadvertently offend others; so keep that in mind before reporting someone before discussing it with them.

8. The report function is not there to be used when you lose an argument. It is there to report actions which are violations of the rules. If the admins do not see the post as a violation of these rules then there will be no moderation and we will notify the reporter of this and why no admin action was taken.

9. Political Pagan is - by nature - a very turbulent place. Things are said there that would be unacceptable anywhere else...but this does not imply that you can get away with murder. The rules are relaxed there, not non-existent. And remember...what happens in Political Pagan STAYS in Political Pagan. See rule #2.

10. All goodbye threads will be closed because all they do is cause drama in the long run, unless they are legitimate 'goodbyes' like, for example, you are moving, losing your internet connection, or something of that nature. If you want to leave MW that is your choice, PM your friends and let them know, but don't make a public spectacle of it.

11. Arguments are NOT to be carried from one thread or forum to another. Neither will things said on other forums be used as cause for discipline here...but by the same token, arguments from off-site STAY off-site. Private, real life problems between members needs to be settled in private and off of the public boards.

12. Public discussion of moderations, admin modes, and 'mol' modes is not allowed anywhere on the site except in the grievance forum. Please read the guidelines for the grievance forum below. If you violate the rules outlined here then you will be moderated. It serves several purposes, of which the most important is getting threads back on track and showing real examples of these rules in action. This goes for anything...don't even quote a moderation and say 'Thank You.' Use a karma poke instead, as some members might see that as a slap in the face. It's not worth it! No public discussion of bannings is allowed and we will NOT discuss the banning of one member with another, so don't ask!

13. Nobody is above the rules, whether they be a mod, an admin, etc.



Grievance Forum Guidelines

If an admin moderates your post you have the option of discussing the moderation in the Grievance Forum. By starting a thread in this forum you are requesting the moderation to be reviewed by the admins. Only the person moderated can start threads to discuss the moderation. No one can start it on behalf of another poster. No admin will start a thread to discuss a moderation. The discussion of the moderation will include any or all of the admins that choose to participate in the discussion. Only the original poster and admins can participate in the discussion. If there is no progress towards a resolution the thread will be closed. It is for discussions and clarification, not arguments. If there is no explanation of how the moderated post does not break the rules then there is no need for the thread.

Posting in the Grievance Forum is optional. The option to PM an admin about the moderation is still available and encouraged if the member feels the moderation is unjust but does not feel comfortable with publicly viewable discussion.

No discussion of the topics in the grievance forum should happen anywhere else on the site. (See Rule #12)

This forum is for public viewing of constructive conversation regarding moderations and not a license to publicly harass, bash or criticize the administration or other members. Threads are only to be started for legitimate disagreements with a specific moderation. Threads started without refutation of a moderation will be closed. Threads for general concerns are not allowed. Please use the Site Room for discussion of that sort.

Abuse of these rules in the Grievance Forum will lead to the poster being banned.



Now for the fine print, only...it's not so fine...it's the same size as all the rest:

All messages express the views of the author (meaning the post's author), and not the administrators of Mystic Wicks nor will the administrators or Mystic Wicks be held responsible for the content of any message.

If you feel a message is in violation of our rules and/or policies then PLEASE REPORT THE POST using the report link located in the menu underneath each post. This goes for posts made by administrators as well (after all, the admins are members of this community, too). Even if you feel someone may have already reported it...report it anyway. It's not tattling. With that said, members don't need to be politically correct all the time. Posted material may offend you. If so, step back and wonder whether it was meant to hurt you specifically. Then you may want to report it. Otherwise, learn from it or toss it aside.

The administrators of Mystic Wicks Online Pagan Community and Spiritual Sanctuary have the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread/post/signature/avatar/profile pic/etc for any reason. PERIOD! Why? Because I am sure some troll will come along eventually and find a way to skirt around the rules outlines above. It always happens. One thing that has made MW the great place that it is, is the absolute intolerance for trolls and trolling in any form.

All posts are the property of the individuals who contributed them unless otherwise specified or deemed inappropriate by the rules and guidelines. User-specific data is property of Mystic Wicks. Please do not copy any information without first contacting the site admins and/or the respective author of the previously mentioned information.

In the case of a moved thread the thread originator is notified with a link to its new location. If your thread is moved to a different forum than you originally posted it in and you feel it was not moved properly, then report the first post in the thread with a message stating WHY you feel it was wrong to move the thread and specify the forum you would like it moved back into. If, after reviewing the thread, the admins feel it should be moved back then it will be moved back. If this happens with your own thread, contact the admin or mod who moved it.

User names and accounts are never deleted (unless a user account has been dormant for more than one year and has 0 posts) so please don't ask us to do so. This would totally disrupt the flow of threads. Members cannot have more than one user name. If we (admins) find out that a member is posting under two usernames we will merge those usernames after contacting the member in question and verifying that this is, indeed, the case. If you forget your log-in, contact an admin. If you want to change your user name, contact an admin. If you have registered twice and posted under several different accounts and want them merged then please contact an administrator.

We take copyrights very seriously here. To view our 'Fair Use' policy....click here (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=12340).

If you have been banned and would like to come back to the forum then please note our 'appeals' process. First, no one that has been banned will be considered for reinstatement until 3 months after their ban (some exceptions can be made depending on the nature of the ban...read on.) Please contact me (mol) if you would like your forum privileges re-instated. We don't like banning ANYONE, so we always have open eyes and ears if someone really wants to be here. So, again, email me (mol) if you would like to be re-instated. An email discussion will begin and that is the first step. Click HERE (http://www.mysticwicks.com/sendmessage.php) to email me. The rest is between you and I. After some discussion I will present this discussion to the rest of the admins for feedback. This is not a guarantee of reinstatement...but it is a start.

A word about Privacy: All information given in the sign-up form will remain private to the Mystic Wicks Community. No information will ever be given out or sold.

These rules are subject to change at any time. However, if the rules are changed the community will be notified via a new thread outlining the change and through a community-wide email.




Discuss! Constructive suggestions are encouraged. No arguing!

[Philosophia]

I agree with it except one rule I'm confused about:
11. Arguments are NOT to be carried from one thread or forum to another. Neither will things said on other forums be used as cause for discipline here...but by the same token, arguments from off-site STAY off-site. Private, real life problems between members needs to be settled in private and off of the public boards.

What happens if the person debating in one thread states something contradictory from what they said in another thread? Are we allowed to question them on that contradiction?

[mol]

What happens if the person debating in one thread states something contradictory from what they said in another thread? Are we allowed to question them on that contradiction?

As long as it is not an argument, then I don't see a problem. The rule pertains specifically to arguments. Like two people going at it and a thread gets closed...then they start going at it in another thread. No good.

[Philosophia]

As long as it is not an argument, then I don't see a problem. The rule pertains specifically to arguments. Like two people going at it and a thread gets closed...then they start going at it in another thread. No good.

Okay! Thanks for the clarification. :hugz:

[mol]

Okay! Thanks for the clarification. :hugz:
No problem!! =]

[nightchild]

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_75.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxmk121YYUS)I thought you explained it well. I'll compley





http://www.smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb095&pp=ZNxmk121YYUS (http://smiley.smileycentral.com/download/index.jhtml?partner=ZSzeb095_ZNxmk121YYUS&utm_id=7923)

[Agaliha]

Sounds reasonable to me. I'm glad everything is clearly stated and all of that as there have been confusion about some things.

[Zibblsnrt]

8. The report function is not there to be used when you lose an argument.

Hee. I love that this has to be specified.

For Rule 10 ("Goodbye threads"), are you referring to such threads as a species barring the exceptions you give there, or the more standard flounce thread ("That's it! I'm leaving! You'll never see me again, you ungrateful bastards! *minor chord*")? I can see the obviously hostile ones like that getting tossed, but if a longstanding member was leaving the site for some non-dramacalyptic reason, I can't see why they couldn't say so in Just Talk, if just so half the userbase doesn't start wondering.

I suppose what I'm saying is that intent should matter in this one a lot more heavily than the others.

I also like the grievance system vastly better than the previous one that was in place, especially the fact that non-involved users can't participate and that it need not necessarily be challenged publicly. (I in fact didn't know the board software could restrict posts that specifically. Learn something every day, I guess.)

[«§øü£Çûttër»]

Works well for me.

[mol]

Hee. I love that this has to be specified.

For Rule 10 ("Goodbye threads"), are you referring to such threads as a species barring the exceptions you give there, or the more standard flounce thread ("That's it! I'm leaving! You'll never see me again, you ungrateful bastards! *minor chord*")? I can see the obviously hostile ones like that getting tossed, but if a longstanding member was leaving the site for some non-dramacalyptic reason, I can't see why they couldn't say so in Just Talk, if just so half the userbase doesn't start wondering.

I suppose what I'm saying is that intent should matter in this one a lot more heavily than the others.

I also like the grievance system vastly better than the previous one that was in place, especially the fact that non-involved users can't participate and that it need not necessarily be challenged publicly. (I in fact didn't know the board software could restrict posts that specifically. Learn something every day, I guess.)

You are correct. It is intent. The 'MW sucks...I am leaving threads...or, Woe is me, I can't take this place anymore' threads will be closed. However, if someone is losing internet or moving or something of that nature (really legit goodbyes or cya laters) then they will be left open. These are just fine.

Thanks for the comments....all of you. It is much appreciated. The admins and various other folks have worked very hard on working these rules and guidelines out.

Any questions and suggestions are welcome. Soon I would like to instate them and open the grievance forum and followup with an email to the community.

Or should I send out an email to the community to alert everyone that we are discussing this? Thoughts?

[Philosophia]

Or should I send out an email to the community to alert everyone that we are discussing this? Thoughts?

I think this maybe the best idea. That way people can know what is happening, etc. especially people who haven't come to the board in some time.

[«§øü£Çûttër»]

I think it would be a wise idea to let everyone know what is being tossed around, that way, a broader scope of suggestions or comments or grievances can be discussed before the 'final product' shall we say is in place.

[Agaliha]

I think this maybe the best idea. That way people can know what is happening, etc. especially people who haven't come to the board in some time.

Yeah. I think an email would be best. :)

[SSanf]

I would like to see the word "racist" added under rule two. I am sick and tired of that worn out word being tossed in every time the poster has nothing better to say and no further arguments to support their position on a subject so they result to name calling.

There was a great example in the "Japan hints of Military action in warning to N. Korea over Nuke test." thread.

http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=141051&page=3

[Xentor]

We've considered the list of examples, and decided not to make it an exclusive list. Therefore, we've added that "actually, any name-calling whatsoever" is a violation. That should include the label "racist".

[SSanf]

So, it isn't up, yet, right? I guess, it will go under "Site Discussion".

So, since the discussion is only between the mods and the poster, what if everyone else agrees with the poster? Do they PM the mods, or what?

I think people wanted some kind of input.

Can there be a poll such as

"I agree with this moderation"

"I sort of agree with this moderation"

"I don't agree with this moderation"

"This moderator really should have gotten more sleep"

???

[Xentor]

So, it isn't up, yet, right? I guess, it will go under "Site Discussion".
Right, the Grievances Forum isn't up yet. We're awaiting some community opinions. Yes, it'll probably be a part of the Site Discussion Forum.

So, since the discussion is only between the mods and the poster, what if everyone else agrees with the poster? Do they PM the mods, or what?
Apart from the high improbabability that everyone will agree with the moderated member, right now the administrators don't intend to allow a public discussion of moderation by other parties than the moderated and the administrators. That means that if third parties wish to voice their concern, yes, they have the option of using private means, like private messages or e-mail. However, if anyone tries to disturb the discussion, the administrators will hold them in contempt and remove them from the site.

[Xentor]

I think people wanted some kind of input.

Can there be a poll such as

"I agree with this moderation"

"I sort of agree with this moderation"

"I don't agree with this moderation"

"This moderator really should have gotten more sleep"

???

Mystic Wicks is not a democracy.

Problem with this kind of poll, is that it allows for favouritism, which is one of the behaviours we strive to eliminate from our admin actions.

[Carickah]

WilCO



k

[Carickah]

"This moderator really should have gotten more sleep"



I love this... but really, maybe we should have the report button read something similar... like "This poster should have gotten more sleep" ... hehe, and for MWad, it could be "This poster needs to be laid" hehehe... just a thought

[Xentor]

WilCO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilco_(disambiguation)
http://www.wilcomarshbuggies.com/models2.htm
http://www.wilco.org.uk/
http://www.gowilco.com/site_eng/complexite.htm
http://www.wilcoincorporated.com/

?

wil·co (wlk)
interj.
Used especially in radio communications to indicate agreement or compliance.

[SSanf]

OK. I was asking because of the one night trial run, that I saw. There was a moderation, that the general membership thought should be reversed and they wanted input, that night. The moderation was reversed, in the long run. So, those seemed like reasonable questions.

[stella01904]

We've considered the list of examples, and decided not to make it an exclusive list. Therefore, we've added that "actually, any name-calling whatsoever" is a violation. That should include the label "racist".

Agreed, using the term "racist" to tag a person (i.e. "you inbred racist scum sucker") is name calling. However, using the term to tag a comment or mode of thought ("that policy is inherently racist", "that comment smacks of racism") seems perfectly allowable, is it not?

[Xentor]

Agreed, using the term "racist" to tag a person (i.e. "you inbred racist scum sucker") is name calling. However, using the term to tag a comment or mode of thought ("that policy is inherently racist", "that comment smacks of racism") seems perfectly allowable, is it not?

Any kind of name calling is considered a violation. Discussing points in someone's posts is not considered name calling and thus not a violation as long as it doesn't violate any of the other rules.

Now if you'd state something like "All of your posts and your thoughts reek of racism to me", would you still be violating this rule?

[stella01904]

Which brings up the philosophical question of whether one is one's thoughts...:stooges: Fodder for a long, boring thread...

Actually, the generalization would amount to name calling, or at least "verbal" (typed?) abuse, of the "you ALWAYS....., you NEVER.... type.

Though if all the person's thoughts and posts truly did reek of racism, this would need to be addressed as well.

[Xentor]

Yes it should. For that reason, we've invented a completely new and previously unheard of option: the report button.

[Gwenhwyfar]

Well it all looks good and fair to me, but it always did. Thanks for all the effort Mol, your appreciated!

[Carickah]

Hey X,

Wilco is short for will comply. It is used in radio to indicate that instructions have been received and understood and the person saying it will abide by them. For me, its an old military thing. Sorry for the confusion.


k

[JyuMuse]

That means that if third parties wish to voice their concern, yes, they have the option of using private means, like private messages or e-mail. However, if anyone tries to disturb the discussion, the administrators will hold them in contempt and remove them from the site.

Shouldn't this be added to the rules then because it's not in them. It just says you can only discuss moderations in the grievances forum, it doesn't say you can only discuss your own moderations in the grievances forum.

[SwordsFlameSong]

One thing to note on the name calling - specifically the example given earlier of rascist/rascism etc.

If someone posts:

"Member X, your post is the one of the most rascist comments I ever read."

VS.

"This post comes across as sounding rascist to me."

I will question the first comment more than the latter as far as intent goes.

The first implies ownership of this to the quoted poster without acknowledging the second party's own perceptions of what the first poster intended.

The second example doesn't use the word "your" implying ownership but the second poster is taking ownership of their own perception of the comment.

Does this make any sense? I just ask as I need more coffee.

Also, and this is from personal experience with the ol report feature. If you feel a specific member is dogging you and can point to a number of posts that have lead you to this conclusion. Pull the links into the report you make. It gives us a clearer picture of what the reporter is experiencing and what has lead to the conclusion that has the reporting poster reporting.

[SwordsFlameSong]

And Mol, I agree that this should be sent out in the form of a community letter etc via email.

[En'arde]

Mol plagarizes. HE LIES. He goes to the Discordians on hands and knees, asking for help. He gets it AND THEN HE TURNS HIS BACK ON THEM. He lies, he lets them get rebanned for no reason, and then HE STEALS RULES FROM ROGER (aka: LittleBilly) without giving due credit. LIES AND HYPOCRISY fill this place. This includes members as well AS ADMINSTRATORS. Do not hide from the truth any longer...

PS: HIMEOBS is still watching...

[SwordsFlameSong]

This has been taken care of - no need to report. Carry on with your discussion of the new rules definition.

Thank you.


Mol plagarizes. HE LIES. He goes to the Discordians on hands and knees, asking for help. He gets it AND THEN HE TURNS HIS BACK ON THEM. He lies, he lets them get rebanned for no reason, and then HE STEALS RULES FROM ROGER (aka: LittleBilly) without giving due credit. LIES AND HYPOCRISY fill this place. This includes members as well AS ADMINSTRATORS. Do not hide from the truth any longer...

PS: HIMEOBS is still watching...

[Athena-Nadine]

Shouldn't this be added to the rules then because it's not in them. It just says you can only discuss moderations in the grievances forum, it doesn't say you can only discuss your own moderations in the grievances forum.

Yes it does, right at the beginning:
If an admin moderates your post you have the option of discussing the moderation in the Grievance Forum. By starting a thread in this forum you are requesting the moderation to be reviewed by the admins. Only the person moderated can start threads to discuss the moderation. No one can start it on behalf of another poster. No admin will start a thread to discuss a moderation.

[SSanf]

HUMP!!

If some people don't like MOL and don't like MW and MW administrators, they should just go away and spend time places they DO like and with people they DO like IMHO.

What are they hanging around here for, if they dislike it so much? Dang, if they are so bereft of friends and acceptance that they must hang in places where they dislike everything so much, if they must break in to get in, they really must have very few options. That is just plain pitiful if you ask me.

I know you already addressed it and want to get on with the conversation, but that just stuck in my craw.

Sorry about that. I am not the most self-controlled, sometimes, and I don't really want to rise above it. I am incensed. I am sure MOL was kind to them a long time. He foot the bill for their many, many hours of free entertainment. And, does so, even now, if they only come and read. Ingrates~!

[JyuMuse]

If an admin moderates your post you have the option of discussing the moderation in the Grievance Forum. By starting a thread in this forum you are requesting the moderation to be reviewed by the admins. Only the person moderated can start threads to discuss the moderation. No one can start it on behalf of another poster. No admin will start a thread to discuss a moderation.

I guess I take that differently. That sounds like only the person who is moderated can start the thread - that way a moderation won't be discussed unless the person moderated actually wants it discussed. It doesn't mean someone else can't chime in with their opinion - and what of those who were moderated who want help discussing their moderation?

I guess I don't see what the point of having an actual forum for grievances is if no one can discuss moderation but those who have been moderated. It's just public PM's - I don't see why this can't just stay private if no one can discuss moderations anyway but the person moderator who can already discuss it through PM's.

Sorry, I'm not trying to start trouble, I'm just confused.

[SwordsFlameSong]

[/b]I guess I take that differently. That sounds like only the person who is moderated can start the thread - that way a moderation won't be discussed unless the person moderated actually wants it discussed. It doesn't mean someone else can't chime in with their opinion - and what of those who were moderated who want help discussing their moderation?

I guess I don't see what the point of having an actual forum for grievances is if no one can discuss moderation but those who have been moderated. It's just public PM's - I don't see why this can't just stay private if no one can discuss moderations anyway but the person moderator who can already discuss it through PM's.

Sorry, I'm not trying to start trouble, I'm just confused.

Part of it is privacy. Not everyone wants their adminning discussion public. Those who want it viewed publicly have the choice to request such.

To the point of allowing only the moderated on to discuss the adminning - well that is to keep out flame baiting and a general free for all. The latter could well happen. But, that doesn't mean other concerned members can't pm and such.

It needs to be kept in mind that, when rolled out, it will be done so as an experiment. With anything new, we can't accurately gauge what will happen or need to be tweaked until we try. =0)

PS I personally hope this will help the community not harm - while still protecting community members and their rights. But I can't go beyond the theoretical concept myself until it is implemented and tested.

[mol]

Well it all looks good and fair to me, but it always did. Thanks for all the effort Mol, your appreciated!

Just for the record, this was not just my effort! =] The rules were built upon suggestions from several people outside this forum. Other groups (Discordian forums, Thelemic newsgroups, art forums, etc). Then I brought these suggestions to the admins and they massaged and posted more suggestions and we made amendments. I do believe it was GEBS and Peacock that actually lined out the guidelines for the grievance forum. And now it is your turn as a community to check them out and ask questions and give suggestions.

I don't believe I ever said *I* came up with these rules alone. ;) I might be able to take credit for gathering everything together, but definitely not for -writing- the entire rule-base.

As far as the community email, I will do that. Several of you have said that it is a good idea to alert the rest of the community and that is good enough for me.

Thanks for the discussion so far, folks!

[Athena-Nadine]

[/b]I guess I take that differently. That sounds like only the person who is moderated can start the thread - that way a moderation won't be discussed unless the person moderated actually wants it pdiscussed. It doesn't mean someone else can't chime in with their opinion - and what of those who were moderated who want help discussing their moderation?

I guess I don't see what the point of having an actual forum for grievances is if no one can discuss moderation but those who have been moderated. It's just public PM's - I don't see why this can't just stay private if no one can discuss moderations anyway but the person moderator who can already discuss it through PM's.

Sorry, I'm not trying to start trouble, I'm just confused.

Well, SFS beat me to it. :) Right now, it is going to be that way in order to protect both the members and the admins. It would be far too easy for a group of people with a grievance against a specific poster to use the forum as an easy platform for attacking him/her and starting a flame war. Sure, we could just close any such threads, but we all know that closing a thread does nothing to alleviate the feelings of those involved.

I knew what was meant so I didn't give it any thought. I can see how the wording can be a bit confusing, though :)

[SwordsFlameSong]

Well, SFS beat me to it. :)


I took a couple of days off from the warzone. Am on furlough. ;)

[Cat]

This looks really good to me. Kudoes to everyone who created it.

[Athena-Nadine]

I took a couple of days off from the warzone. Am on furlough. ;)
It's about time you took some time for yourself. :)

[Wolfpoet]

One thing I'd like to address.

Several threads have been closed and the Admin stated that the threads where closed due to the number of reports the thread recieved.

Now this gives the appearence that all you need to do, to close a thread you don't like, is get lots of reports on it.

Now a little of this has been addressed by the note that the Report button is not for use because one loses an argument. I'm assuming we can use the grievence forum to argue the case for re-opening a thread?

Also, some threads where closed due to bickering and baiting. Could it be an option to have the posts that involve nothing more than arguments and name-calling removed in future, rather than closing a thread? This will leave the thread that others truly want to debate in open, while those who have tried to derail it fail in their attempts to close threads they don't like.

[SwordsFlameSong]

One thing I'd like to address.

Several threads have been closed and the Admin stated that the threads where closed due to the number of reports the thread recieved.

Now this gives the appearence that all you need to do, to close a thread you don't like, is get lots of reports on it.

Now a little of this has been addressed by the note that the Report button is not for use because one loses an argument. I'm assuming we can use the grievence forum to argue the case for re-opening a thread?

Also, some threads where closed due to bickering and baiting. Could it be an option to have the posts that involve nothing more than arguments and name-calling removed in future, rather than closing a thread? This will leave the thread that others truly want to debate in open, while those who have tried to derail it fail in their attempts to close threads they don't like.


This is a very valid concern. I personally hate closing threads and only do it if it has gotten to the point where there is nothing but flaming happening or the purpose of the thread was only to cause trouble for other members.

Mol, do you think we could look into this?

[Athena-Nadine]

This is a very valid concern. I personally hate closing threads and only do it if it has gotten to the point where there is nothing but flaming happening or the purpose of the thread was only to cause trouble for other members.

Mol, do you think we could look into this?
Ditto. :)

[mol]

One thing I'd like to address.

Several threads have been closed and the Admin stated that the threads where closed due to the number of reports the thread recieved.

Now this gives the appearence that all you need to do, to close a thread you don't like, is get lots of reports on it.

Now a little of this has been addressed by the note that the Report button is not for use because one loses an argument. I'm assuming we can use the grievence forum to argue the case for re-opening a thread?

Also, some threads where closed due to bickering and baiting. Could it be an option to have the posts that involve nothing more than arguments and name-calling removed in future, rather than closing a thread? This will leave the thread that others truly want to debate in open, while those who have tried to derail it fail in their attempts to close threads they don't like.

I don't know about this one. Might need some more input on re-opening, deleting posts, etc. And no, reporting a thread alone cannot get it closed. However, if the reports are valid and against the rules outlined in the first post...and there are MANY of them...then it could lead to a thread being closed.

The grievance forum is NOT for requesting that threads be re-opened. You can PM an admin regarding this. The grievance forum is outlined as a place where someone who is moderated can start a thread regarding that moderation and discuss it with other admins. The reason for doing this in public is that some folks feel that it would be better that way. Less chance for favoritism, etc. The option of PM'ing and admin in private is always an option. The grievance forum is just another option.



Mol, do you think we could look into this?

Absolutely...that is why I said this probably needs to be discussed. =]

[Temptation]

This is a very valid concern. I personally hate closing threads and only do it if it has gotten to the point where there is nothing but flaming happening or the purpose of the thread was only to cause trouble for other members.

Mol, do you think we could look into this?


I agree. I have seen threads closed just because two people were bickering. Closing the thread punishes everyone and that is not fair. Not to mention that those threads are usually the most interesting. I'm talking mainly about PP here. It's really very frustrating.

[Lunacie]

The idea of making a thread in the grievance forum would be helpful (I think) in being able to gather input from more than one Admin to help us to get things straight in our own minds ~ sometimes just having someone else word something differently helps us to make sense of something, eh? And when we only hear back from one Admin we may feel like that person has a bias towards us or towards the issue that generated the Adminning, because we don't know how many of the other Admins were contacted by the initial Admin or what their thoughts were on the issue. So I can see how a Grievance Forum could be a good thing. And it's nice to have the choice of whether we want to make it public or keep it private. :)

About reopening a closed thread, there have been several times when I was very frustrated by having a thread closed when I really was into the topic being discussed and wanted to share my opinions or thoughts. It kind of looses momentum when you have to start a whole new thread and not all of the folks who posted in the first topic will see the new thread. Just sayin'...

[Xentor]

Threads are closed when it appears that people are unable to discuss a topic within the limitations of the current rules. It is one of the measures we can take to prevent people from continued violations. Other measures include moving posts and threads, censoring undesirable language, and finally, banning members.

Simply reporting a thread a whole lot won't get it closed. That should be obvious to anyone. Violations in the thread may lead to reports, which may lead to moderations (but aren't their only source), which may lead to closings and bannings. It's a simple and transparent process.

[SwordsFlameSong]

True but it is also dispiriting to have to close a thread because two or three people are running amok in it. It is unfair to those who want to discuss the thread topic but get silenced because a couple of the minority that may run amok.

[Lunacie]

True but it is also dispiriting to have to close a thread because two or three people are running amok in it. It is unfair to those who want to discuss the thread topic but get silenced because a couple of the minority that may run amok.

Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to get across.

[Xentor]

True but it is also dispiriting to have to close a thread because two or three people are running amok in it. It is unfair to those who want to discuss the thread topic but get silenced because a couple of the minority that may run amok.
It's a pretty unknown and long-forgotten technique called "peer pressure".

[SwordsFlameSong]

It's a pretty unknown and long-forgotten technique called "peer pressure".

Even when I was in HS I didn't bend to peer pressure. Just kept doing my thing ya know. This is why I eventually fit into every clique and was genuinely liked by many.

It does get old trying to shout around that dang 2 percent though. *

*the class ahead of mine were a bit wild and they always referred to it as that damn 2%!:hahugh:

[WiccanGoddess]

Even when I was in HS I didn't bend to peer pressure. Just kept doing my thing ya know. This is why I eventually fit into every clique and was genuinely liked by many.

Off topic, but the same here. I didn't conform to meet the needs of others. I was myself, and if it wasn't liked, tough cookies.

At that, I have noticed the rule stating we can't say 'honeybear' so on and so forth, and I am trying. As of today, I have replaced said 'honeybears' with the names of members. I'm going. The rules seem pretty reasonable. I have no complaints.

[Twinkle]

I've seen moderations on closed threads saying "I'm sick of this thread....if I get one more report it will be closed"....I've seen it more than once.

Usually all that's happening is two or three people are arguing. I've also seen peer pressure at work...asking people to stay on topic and quit arguing....doesn't seem to work.

So...what happens is that everyone gets punished for two or three people that can't control themselves...

I'm just wondering if there's a better option.

[Twinkle]

HUMP!!

If some people don't like MOL and don't like MW and MW administrators, they should just go away and spend time places they DO like and with people they DO like IMHO.

What are they hanging around here for, if they dislike it so much? Dang, if they are so bereft of friends and acceptance that they must hang in places where they dislike everything so much, if they must break in to get in, they really must have very few options. That is just plain pitiful if you ask me.

I know you already addressed it and want to get on with the conversation, but that just stuck in my craw.

Sorry about that. I am not the most self-controlled, sometimes, and I don't really want to rise above it. I am incensed. I am sure MOL was kind to them a long time. He foot the bill for their many, many hours of free entertainment. And, does so, even now, if they only come and read. Ingrates~!


And what about posts like this?

A discussion after a moderation, yet someone always has to get the last word in...and namecalling, too?

This post just incited how many people, and yet it's allowed...

And an apology I guess makes it OK.

[SSanf]

I don't think any post should be deleted unless they are illegal because that will make MW look like it is being censored and that would not sit well and it would give credence to rumors.

attack of another member of this community and it will not be tolerated. Notice that we are talking about verbal attacks between members. You are free to call, for example, George Bush...a big loser, until the time comes when Mr. Bush joins the community. Then he must be respected like every other member.The people refered to are not MW members. The poster had one single post and obviously joined with a new user name just to make that one post after being banned. At least, it sure looks that way.

[Wolfpoet]

And what about posts like this?

A discussion after a moderation, yet someone always has to get the last word in...and namecalling, too?

This post just incited how many people, and yet it's allowed...

And an apology I guess makes it OK.

I think we've discussed the usage of terms and doesn't "Ingrate" kinda fit the bill in regards to breaking the respect rule?

Considering some of these "Ingrates" where not banned and still contribute to this forum in a positive way. They consider themselves something of a "loyal opposition" trying to keep folks honest. Some of them used tactics I consider pretty stupid, you don't win debates by flaming, trolling or insulting. But others used and still use rational debate and logic.

[SSanf]

.....See post above. Not a legitimate member's post. The "some people" refered to are the "some people" who would break in and make a drive by post like that.

[_Banbha_]

And what about posts like this?

A discussion after a moderation, yet someone always has to get the last word in...and namecalling, too?

This post just incited how many people, and yet it's allowed...

And an apology I guess makes it OK.

I so agree. It happens over and again.

It's like Admins have there own Greek chorus following Admin posts or on threads like this; sometimes even quoting Admin Modding posts themselves, in order to bait others, get in their own (sometimes off forum) digs and personal grudges aired, all while playing the very system designed to protect everyone. :fpatricks

To me, this goes against everything the respect rules are supposed to be about.

[SSanf]

We are supposed to show curtesy and respect to people who join soley for the purpose of making one disruptive and insulting post and when it is reasonable to assume that since the poster seems so familiar with MW that it is unreasonable to believe that they are anything other than one of the banned???

I think not!

They deserve curtesy and respect when they break in, not to be an active member, but to throw crap on the board??? That is absurd to me.

To even think that was the first post of an aspiring new member is also absurd.

I think instead of being mad at me, you should be mad at THEM for the insult to this board and the administration. And, I think you would have been if you had only noticed that, that was the one and only post ever made under that name. But, you didn't notice that detail, I think.

[Wolfpoet]

We are supposed to show curtesy and respect to people who join soley for the purpose of making one disruptive and insulting post and when it is reasonable to assume that since the poster seems so familiar with MW that it is unreasonable to believe that they are anything other than one of the banned???

I think not!

They deserve curtesy and respect??? That is absurd to me.

I think instead of being mad at me, you should be mad at THEM for the insult to this board and the administration.

To me, this seems like a black and white issue.

The respect rules are there, they broke no argument. Obey them or post somewhere else.

These rules should apply to ALL people in ALL situations. You break them, you pay.

Now I think it's dangerous to add conditions. Can't exactly allow one person to break the respect rule and ban them and then allow someone else to break the respect rule just because they are talking about the first person.

My reading is this: you show curtesy and respect to all posters, no ifs, no buts, no maybes. Makes the Admin's life much easier to make it black and white rather than forever chasing grey, allow grey into rules and you make loopholes, make loopholes and you get an endless array of rules lawyers debating the calls.

Mol said it's not a democracy.

[WiccanGoddess]

Shouldn't respect and curtesy be shown to everyone that is a member of this forum? Anyone and everyone who posts one little word, no matter the past instances?

[_Banbha_]

We are supposed to show curtesy and respect to people who join soley for the purpose of making one disruptive and insulting post and when it is reasonable to assume that since the poster seems so familiar with MW that it is unreasonable to believe that they are anything other than one of the banned???

I think not!

They deserve curtesy and respect??? That is absurd to me.

I think instead of being mad at me, you should be mad at THEM for the insult to this board and the administration.

To whom are you asking your questions or assuming anger on someones part towards you? Please to have the curtesy to quote, or give indication, in order not to obfuscate the issue at hand.

Thank you. :)

[Xentor]

And what about posts like this?

A discussion after a moderation, yet someone always has to get the last word in...and namecalling, too?

This post just incited how many people, and yet it's allowed...

And an apology I guess makes it OK.

What moderation?

[SSanf]

I DID follow the rules!!
attack of another member of this community and it will not be tolerated. Notice that we are talking about verbal attacks between members. You are free to call, for example, George Bush...a big loser, until the time comes when Mr. Bush joins the community.THAT WAS NOT a legitmate MW member. Hence, the 1 post and 0 karma.

Just because someone breaks in under a new user name, does NOT make them a member in good standing. Therefore, they were fair game under the rules as posted.

Actually, it was a darned good demonstration, if I do say so, myself..

Now, you may not like the rules as posted. Well, that is what this thread is about. This is your chance to discuss them.

[Xentor]

I so agree. It happens over and again.

It's like Admins have there own Greek chorus following Admin posts or on threads like this; sometimes even quoting Admin Modding posts themselves, in order to bait others, get in their own (sometimes off forum) digs and personal grudges aired, all while playing the very system designed to protect everyone. :fpatricks

To me, this goes against everything the respect rules are supposed to be about.

Then maybe you shouldn't participate in these forums.

On the other hand, these rules are open for discussion right now. So how about getting in some constructive criticism while you can?

[Wolfpoet]

Shouldn't respect and curtesy be shown to everyone that is a member of this forum? Anyone and everyone who posts one little word, no matter the past instances?

I would say yes, no conditions, no buts no ifs. I read the rulses as sacrosanct, respect given to all members. The person who posted, do we know for sure he/she has been banned? No admin has posted to say they have, so how can we be sure we are not breaking teh respect rule?

Respect should be given to all who post on this forum, no exceptions. I freely admit i need to change my attitude in light of these rules and I have been doing. Some of the people here piss me off no end, but i need to treat them with curtesy.

As a guidline I would suggets we make each post as if it's MOL that we are talking to. Should eb a good base line for the respect.

[WiccanGoddess]

I DID follow the rules!!

No one said you didn't, SSanf.


THAT WAS NOT a legitmate MW member. Hence, the 1 post and 0 karma.

Just because someone breaks in under a new user name, does NOT make them a member in good standing. Therefore, they were fair game under the rules as posted.


Whether or not it was a legitmate MW member, they were a member for even the slightest of time, and even if they are known for negative occurances of the past, perhaps they started anew, and, either way, shouldn't the respect rule adhere to everyone? Granted, they've 'illegally' created a new name, but until that is guaranteed in proof, shouldn't the rule stand?


Actually, it was a darned good demonstration.

Now, you may not like the rules as posted. Well, that is what this thread is about. This is your chance to discuss them.

It's not just our chance, but yours, too, which you are doing. Kudos.

[WiccanGoddess]

I would say yes, no conditions, no buts no ifs. I read the rulses as sacrosanct, respect given to all members. The person who posted, do we know for sure he/she has been banned? No admin has posted to say they have, so how can we be sure we are not breaking teh respect rule?

That's how I see it.


Respect should be given to all who post on this forum, no exceptions. I freely admit i need to change my attitude in light of these rules and I have been doing. Some of the people here piss me off no end, but i need to treat them with curtesy.


Same here, changing of attitudes...we'll await Mol or Xentor or other's response upon the issue of 'respect' upon everyone.


As a guidline I would suggets we make each post as if it's MOL that we are talking to. Should eb a good base line for the respect.

That is true. That is a fine and dandy line drawn, WP.

[_Banbha_]

Then maybe you shouldn't participate in these forums.

Stock answer to anyone whose issues and points you do not wish to acknowledge. *yawn*

On the other hand, these rules are open for discussion right now. So how about getting in some constructive criticism while you can?

What about my point was not measured and constructive?

I get the fact that while I am somebody who has always made an effort to follow and understand the rules, it is suggested I leave....Perhaps another Admin's response is called for in our case?

[_Banbha_]

Yes, quoting myself. Here is my point about the respect rule for clarification:

I so agree. It happens over and again.

It's like Admins have there own Greek chorus following Admin posts or on threads like this; sometimes even quoting Admin Modding posts themselves, in order to bait others, get in their own (sometimes off forum) digs and personal grudges aired, all while playing the very system designed to protect everyone. :fpatricks

To me, this goes against everything the respect rules are supposed to be about.

Protecting everyone under the respect rule, and I don't have include banned members to make this point; but, there should not exceptions. This very thing has happened with unbanned members after moderations.

[SSanf]

Whether or not it was a legitmate MW member, they were a member for even the slightest of time
I do not believe they were a member for any amount, at all. I firmly believe they were trespassers and nothing more.

[WiccanGoddess]

I do not believe they were a member for any amount, at all. I firmly believe they were trespassers and nothing more.

As to whether who is a 'trespasser' and who isn't, that isn't up to us, the members, is it? Isn't that up to the admin(s)? We have rules. We follow them. No matter what. No matter what we believe. If we believe something, and said something goes against the rules, we should be dealt with accordingly, if we go against the rules with said belief. To us, they are members, until an admin declares against such.

[SSanf]

so how can we be sure we are not breaking teh respect rule?
Common sense. I have no proof that the sun will come up tomorrow, either. None the less, common sense dictates that I act as if it is going to come up.

Likewise, common sense dictates that such a post is not the first post of a new MW member nor of a just unbanned member. Therefore, it goes against common sense to treat such a post as if it is a legitimate MW member. To me, it goes against rational thinking to believe that was the post of "just another member". That post in no way deserved the "benefit of the doubt" nor did I feel it necessary to give it such benefit.


Question. If you are unbanned, do you get your karma returned? Because, this poster had none at all.

[WiccanGoddess]

Likewise, common sense dictates that such a post is not the first post of a new MW member nor of a just unbanned member. Therefore, it goes against common sense to treat such a post as if it is a legitimate MW member.

Question is this: Who are you, or we, to determine a legitimate member from a nonlegitimate? Only admins, I believe, are obliged to make the call, and until said call is made, respect and clarity all the way towards the new member. How are we to know for sure it's a member of the past? How are we to know, as we lack access to IP addresses. How are we to know it's not a new member? We're not psychic.

[WiccanGoddess]

To me, it goes against rational thinking to believe that was the post of "just another member". That post in no way deserved the "benefit of the doubt" nor did I feel it necessary to give it such benefit.
In this case, doesn't logic overtake common sense? You can't logically prove this isn't 'just another member', nor can you prove it's a 'member of the past' unless you have asked said member, talked to an admin, and/or recieved similar IP addresses from said member. Shouldn't we let the admins make the call and just simply...follow the rules? It's not up to us who deserves benefit of doubt, is it?

[SSanf]

We're not psychic.Speak for yourself. Don't speak for us. Many MW members DO have that gift.
Others are simply very perceptive.

I did follow the rules.

[WiccanGoddess]

Speak for yourself. Don't speak for us. Many MW members DO have that gift.
Others are simply very perceptive.

That said, psychic in terms of rules makes no sense. There are rules. What's so hard about following them? The most of us can't predict whether a member is legit or not. I question the admins: In cases of illigit members, do we make the call or the admins?




I did follow the rules.
I never said you didn't, but I'm questioning, not only you, but admins who read this...should we respect those we know are here only...to...'troll', for lack of better word? Does the respect rule not apply to everyone? And who makes the calls? The members or the admins? (In cases of said 'trolls'. Sorry, I can't find the right word.)

[Hellenic_Witch]

How are we to know it's not a new member? We're not psychic.

Actually, some members here are psychic!:lol:

But I agree. As WG said, we have rules and even as annoying as it is that sometimes people do come here under a different name just to start trouble. But, they don't get very far. Don't break the rules to deal with them...It is not our job. That is the territory of the admins.

[SSanf]

I am not going to post the rule for the third time. You can go back and read it. If you don't like the wording, suggest such changes as you think are appropriate.

[Lunacie]

That's always been my understanding as well, and I don't see anything in the rule changes that would make it different now. If you suspect a brand new member is a troll, or someone who has been perma-banned and is trying to sneak back in, don't respond to them at all - use the ReporT button and let the Admins handle it... if there is anything to handle.

[Kaylara]

Hello. People, you're not discussing the rules or guidelines. If you have an issue with a specific point mentioned therein, please say which one and why. If you can see room for improvement, please state where, why, and how. Please do not contrive situations for us to conjecture about. Please don't bring up past situations, because with the new system we're trying to avoid or alleviate the problems of the past. We're working towards something better, and we're asking you for assistance with that. If you have old grudges or problems, please check them at the door because they're not going to be of any constructive help, and they're probably taken care of by the new rules and guidelines.

[Kaylara]

That's always been my understanding as well, and I don't see anything in the rule changes that would make it different now. If you suspect a brand new member is a troll, or someone who has been perma-banned and is trying to sneak back in, don't respond to them at all - use the ReporT button and let the Admins handle it... if there is anything to handle.

Exactly.

[SSanf]

If I may summarize, I think what they are taking issue with is the part about "attack of another member of this community and it will not be tolerated. Notice that we are talking about verbal attacks between members." and they think it should be more inclusive and that we should talk about nice, nice about any and all, at all times, with no exceptions. At least, that is what I get out of it.

I do not for a single minute think that even one of the posters who objected to my post really believes that was a legitimate MW member no matter their protestations that "it could have been". That being the case, I find it hard to believe that they actually think I broke the rule as currently written.

If you talk badly about anyone whom-so-ever, even those intent on causing havoc to MW, some people get upset. I think they would like it re-worded but are not sure exactly how.

I think that could be tough because so many people come here to bad mouth relatives and others in their lives.

That was not a contrived situation. I felt there was very strong evidence that the poster was not a legitimate MW member and, therefore, was fair game according to the rules as now written.

[Kaylara]

Which is why it says talking about other members. There is no rule saying that you have to be nice or agree with everyone else. You can even be downright rude. But we do see a difference between a personal attack and rudeness.

If a person has a few posts and a recent join date and all of those posts are obnoxious, pornographic, or attacking others, it's most likely a troll. Now this recent person was someone who was banned sneaking in (for about the 7th time.) and it was obvious. While we prefer that people just report them and don't feed the trolls, we also know that some people are entirely unable to restrain themselves when it comes to dealing with trolls. It's understandable. What the troll is doing is basically attacking the community as a whole, and some people just enjoy playing 'Whack a troll'. A troll has no respect for the community and as such we will not give them any respect either. (This is why we unceremoniously throw them out.) You may get moderated for your behavior in dealing with a troll too. You have to weigh whether or not it's worth it to you to behave like that. *shrugs*

[Cassie]

One thing I'd like to address.

Several threads have been closed and the Admin stated that the threads where closed due to the number of reports the thread recieved.

Now this gives the appearence that all you need to do, to close a thread you don't like, is get lots of reports on it.

.

I agree. I have seen threads closed just because two people were bickering. Closing the thread punishes everyone and that is not fair. Not to mention that those threads are usually the most interesting. I'm talking mainly about PP here. It's really very frustrating.

Threads are closed when it appears that people are unable to discuss a topic within the limitations of the current rules. It is one of the measures we can take to prevent people from continued violations. Other measures include moving posts and threads, censoring undesirable language, and finally, banning members....
.

True but it is also dispiriting to have to close a thread because two or three people are running amok in it. It is unfair to those who want to discuss the thread topic but get silenced because a couple of the minority that may run amok.

Is it technically possible to ban people from individual threads (at least for a cooling off period) rather than close the whole thread?

[Kaylara]

No, it's not possible to ban people from individual threads. We can ban them from particular forums though.

[Lunacie]

No, it's not possible to ban people from individual threads. We can ban them from particular forums though.

Wow, I didn't know that. Have you ever done that?

[Wolfpoet]

No, it's not possible to ban people from individual threads. We can ban them from particular forums though.

I'm thinking this may be a good use as a "1st strike". A cool off period from the forum in which they have been causing hassle. It could allow for threads to continue without the trouble makers.

[Cassie]

I'm thinking this may be a good use as a "1st strike". A cool off period from the forum in which they have been causing hassle. It could allow for threads to continue without the trouble makers.
I agree. I think that could be useful sometimes.

[SSanf]

Thank you for the confirmation that my assesment of the legitamacy of the poster was correct.

OK, now, I am really confused. The rule clearly states that we are only obligated to be respectful of MW members. So, I WAS within the rules as written, right?

Maybe, this needs rewording, after all.

Sorry, that I can't help you there. I will have to think about it. But, I will think about it some.

[Lunacie]

I believe that the way it works is that someone who is signed up as a member is considered to be a member - even if it's obvious that they're a troll - until they are booted or banned. I've seen a lot of really funny "bash the troll" threads over the years, but if you confront a troll you're taking a chance on getting an Admin Mode because of the respect rule.

[Twinkle]

The issue that I had was that a member came on the board and made an inciteful comment. We all can assume troll..but no one ever told us, we didn't know for sure.

An Admin posted and said that the poster had been taken care of, continue the discussion...and you, Ssanf had to put your two cents in, call the member and unspecified others ingrates after it was said to continue with the discussion!

You didn't help anything with your comment...only to piss off more people. Then you apologized for it, saying you had no control. The problem was, you already did it.

I call that baiting...but maybe it's just me.

And somehow this is OK....

That's what I don't get.

[WiccanGoddess]

I believe that the way it works is that someone who is signed up as a member is considered to be a member - even if it's obvious that they're a troll - until they are booted or banned. I've seen a lot of really funny "bash the troll" threads over the years, but if you confront a troll you're taking a chance on getting an Admin Mode because of the respect rule.

Way of writing: Thumbsupskie!

I feel that the respect rule falls for everyone, no matter how we percieve them. Until it is declared by an admin, I feel that is how this rule can be interpreted. As Lunacie stated. Until Mol or fellow admins appear with the answers, it's how I will interpet it.

[WiccanGoddess]

The issue that I had was that a member came on the board and made an inciteful comment. We all can assume troll..but no one ever told us, we didn't know for sure.

An Admin posted and said that the poster had been taken care of, continue the discussion...and you, Ssanf had to put your two cents in, call the member and unspecified others ingrates after it was said to continue with the discussion!

You didn't help anything with your comment...only to piss off more people. Then you apologized for it, saying you had no control. The problem was, you already did it.

I call that baiting...but maybe it's just me.

And somehow this is OK....

That's what I don't get.

I call it baiting, too...to say you had no control...well, my opinion...it's disrespectful, so I won't post. I don't see how an apology makes it oay, either, Twinkle.

[Lunacie]

The issue that I had was that a member came on the board and made an inciteful comment. We all can assume troll..but no one ever told us, we didn't know for sure.

An Admin posted and said that the poster had been taken care of, continue the discussion...and you, Ssanf had to put your two cents in, call the member and unspecified others ingrates after it was said to continue with the discussion!

You didn't help anything with your comment...only to piss off more people. Then you apologized for it, saying you had no control. The problem was, you already did it.

I call that baiting...but maybe it's just me.

And somehow this is OK....

That's what I don't get.

Sometimes people respond to a post without reading the rest of the new posts in that thread and therefore don't see an Admin Mode before posting. If it's a problem then Report it to the Admins and they can ask the poster to edit their post. I don't know if that's what happened in the situation with Ssanf that you're referring to, but I've seen it several times.

[Kaylara]

I believe that the way it works is that someone who is signed up as a member is considered to be a member - even if it's obvious that they're a troll - until they are booted or banned. I've seen a lot of really funny "bash the troll" threads over the years, but if you confront a troll you're taking a chance on getting an Admin Mode because of the respect rule.
Yep. Exactly. So, anything else need rewording or whatever?

[SSanf]

Who was I baiting? It was very clear that the troll had been booted. To bait someone they must be able to take the bait. That doesn't make sense to me. That was a rhetorical question and needs no particular response.

I will not discuss this further so that other parts of the rules may be dissected.

[WiccanGoddess]

Who was I baiting? It was very clear that the troll had been booted. To bait someone they must be able to take the bait. That doesn't make sense to me.

All those in disagreement with you?

That said...


Yep. Exactly. So, anything else need rewording or whatever?

I would just like to ask about the Grievance forum...when will it be set to go?

[Twinkle]

Who was I baiting? It was very clear that the troll had been booted. To bait someone they must be able to take the bait. That doesn't make sense to me. That was a rhetorical question and needs no particular response.

I will not discuss this further so that other parts of the rules may be dissected.


All the other unspecified people you called ingrates who disagree with you.

[Temptation]

I'm thinking this may be a good use as a "1st strike". A cool off period from the forum in which they have been causing hassle. It could allow for threads to continue without the trouble makers.


I agree. I think that could be useful sometimes.


I totally agree also. And I must say I am very suprised this hasn't been used before.

[Twinkle]

I totally agree also. And I must say I am very suprised this hasn't been used before.


I really like this idea as well. Sometimes people need a break....time to cool off before they really say something that will get them banned.

[WiccanGoddess]

I really like this idea as well. Sometimes people need a break....time to cool off before they really say something that will get them banned.

Don't they have 'cool down' bans? More like temporary suspensions...but the same thing...si?

[mol]

I would just like to ask about the Grievance forum...when will it be set to go?

When the rules go into *effect*. I want to send out a global email to the community and let those who want to review and give some feedback on these rules a turn to do so before we make them active.

[Cassie]

Don't they have 'cool down' bans? More like temporary suspensions...but the same thing...si?

Yes, but this would be specific to a particular forum.

[WiccanGoddess]

When the rules go into *effect*. I want to send out a global email to the community and let those who want to review and give some feedback on these rules a turn to do so before we make them active.


Okay, thanks for such a quick response!

[Lunacie]

Don't they have 'cool down' bans? More like temporary suspensions...but the same thing...si?

Like Wolfpoet said, it's a "first strike" and you'd only be banned from one forum. After another "strike" or two of them you'd be banned from the whole of MW for a cool down period. I like the idea. :thumbsup:

[Wolfpoet]

Yes, but this would be specific to a particular forum.

People act differently in different forums. Sometimes it's unfair for a blanket ban for something said in one forum.

I'll admit I've spent most of my time in PP lately, which is perhaps the hotbed for tensions. I've also posted in Just Pagan, paths and Gods and Goddesses, as well as the occaisonal foray into Philosophy and History.

I don't have the arguments in these others that you see in PP, which I think is the nature of political stuff. Sometimes if you go to far in one forum, a cool off is good and allows a member to re-discover other forums they have been neglecting. I for one have considred a sabbatical from PP and going back to writing essays on the Norse faith. Just keep getting dragged back into politics lol

Could never say no to obvious bait I guess.

[mol]

We are going to work out some 'Admin Guidelines' in the admin forum and post them up with the rules so we can discuss those as well. This will include how we will handle bans and perhaps we can get around not closing threads, etc. Stay tuned, folks. For now, lets pause that type of discussion and maybe focus on what we already have in the rules in the first post.

Thanks for the suggestions, folks. You guys rock!

[CzechWoods]

there are new rules ???????


what did i miss ??????????????????

[mol]

there are new rules ???????


what did i miss ??????????????????
Not a thing, my friend. They are in the first post. We are just discussing them now. =]

[Rick]

there are new rules ???????


what did i miss ??????????????????
pfffft! Czechie, you are the last person that needs to worry about being disrespectful to anyone else. :)

[mol]

pfffft! Czechie, you are the last person that needs to worry about being disrespectful to anyone else. :)
Haha! That's what I was thinking.

[eldora_avalon]

These are the rules as worked on by someone other than mol.

Just tell Mol I said he's pathetic. Totally without a shred of integrity or honor.

Which was pretty much what I was thinking. These weren't written by a bunch of people, they were written by one man that mol gave a promise to. Mol barely even fleshed them out and didn't even bother to fix all the grammatical errors. I wanted you guys to see word for word where most of your new rules came from. They came from a Discordian of the Subgenius variety. Someone who used to post here under another name.

http://www.erisbarandgrill.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=71735#71735

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:57 pm



It's an interesting idea, Mol, but I really have to ask...what's in it for me? I've been banned, the friggin' bobsy twins have played monkeyfuck with my account and my posts...

I really want to help you out, Mol, and I have a few ideas...but what's my motivation?

Well, you will be unbanned, of course. That much is certain.

Well, I appreciate that, but I knew I was gonna be banned when I made the post that got me exiled. I would do what I did all over again, if I am once more to be at the tender mercies of Kaylara and Xentor.

If you can promise that you'll at least put a leash on those two - by which I mean force them to restrain their hate - I will be more than happy to help you out, and to return to your board, which I enjoyed immensely until the recent unpleasantness.

Now, I'm off to have a smoke and bounce a few ideas around (concerning your 13 points), while I await your answer.

TGRR,
Keeping an open mind. In fact, the friggin' thing is like a wind tunnel.

http://www.erisbarandgrill.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=71844#71844

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:41 am(eastern time)

1. Please keep the language G-rated, as may minors post here. "Crap" works when you want to say "shit", for example. Same goes for image files...a funny pic is fine, but pr0n is unacceptable. If it can't go on the teevee, it can't go here.

2. Debate the idea, don't attack the poster. Calling someone "neocon filth"/"Liberal traitor"/"Fluffy bunny" is not a refutation of an idea, it's an ad hominem attack.

3. Racism, sexism, the outright bashing of a path or religion, etc is unacceptable. Debating the tenets of a religion is one thing...calling all Christians evil is quite another.

4. No spam, advertisements, or anything of that nature is permitted, unless you pay the sacred ad fees to Mol. Freeload off of someone else.

5. The ignore function is your friend. Keep the flames to PMs, and/or put people who annoy you on ignore.

6. Posting of PMs, red karma, or emails is forbidden without the consent of the other party(s) involved.

More on the way.

http://www.erisbarandgrill.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=71887#71887

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:04 am(eastern time)

7. Joking around is okay, but you are at the mercy of the person you are joking with. Calling your friend a "tard" is fine, provided he/she isn't offended. Please try to work out any differences of opinion on this matter via PM before reporting. YOUR next joke may inadvertently offend others; so keep that in mind before reporting someone before discussing it with them.

8. The report function is not there to be used when you lose an argument. It is there to report actions which are violations of the rules.

9. Political Pagan is - by nature - a very turbulent place. Things are said there that would be unacceptable anywhere else...but this does not imply that you can get away with murder. The rules are relaxed there, not non-existant. And remember...what happens in Political Pagan STAYS in Political Pagan.

10. Evangelizing is legal. Sorry. If done politely, it is a perfectly valid form of expression on a board that is - however unconventionally - religious in nature. However, haranguing people with, foe example, threats of hellfire is NOT okay. Neither is calling someone's religion "false", no matter how wrong or silly it may seem to you.

11. Arguments are NOT to be carried from one thread or forum to another. Neither will things said on other forums be used as cause for discipline here...but by the same token, arguments from off-site STAY off-site.

12. A general guideline is this: Post nothing that you wouldn't want to have posted toward yourself. Bear in mind that your having a thick skin doesn't mean you can violate the above rules.

13. Nobody is above the rules, whether they be a mod, an admin, etc.

Special bonus rule 14. There is no secret "Pogs" forum...so stop bugging Mol about it. Seriously.

[mol]

These are the rules as worked on by someone other than mol.

I already told everyone this:

http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?p=2841607#post2841607

[SSanf]

Good grief!

How dare you use their one or two donated sentences and develop them into full-blown paragraphs and, then, give them attribution in this thread.

Dang, I guess, they sure caught you that time, MOL.

I guess, the complaint is that they didn't get paid enough in restraining the mods which appears to be the coinage for forum rule writing.

Just rephrase a few things so you owe them NOTHING unless they have already been paid off.

[mol]

Good grief!

How dare you use their one or two freely donated sentences and develop them into full-blown paragraphs and, then, give them attribution in this thread.

Dang, I guess, they sure caught you that time, MOL.

I guess, the complaint is that they didn't get paid enough in restraining the mods which appears to be the coinage for forum rule writing.
=]

No, no, no! This thread is for discussion of the rules and guidelines that were posted in the first post. I don't want this turning into the next conspiracy theory or 'MW sucks because I broke rules and got banned' thread. No discussing of bans...no discussing of anything except the rules outlined in the first post. Discuss and suggest.

For the record, AGAIN, a LOT of people worked on these rules and none of them ever asked for credit nor did *I* take credit. And now that the community is discussing and suggesting improvements then *YOU ALL* are a part of it, too.

[Lunacie]

These are the rules as worked on by someone other than mol.



Which was pretty much what I was thinking. These weren't written by a bunch of people, they were written by one man that mol gave a promise to. Mol barely even fleshed them out and didn't even bother to fix all the grammatical errors. I wanted you guys to see word for word where most of your new rules came from. They came from a Discordian of the Subgenius variety. Someone who used to post here under another name.



It's been explained that Mol talked to the very people who are most likely to try and find the loopholes and exploit them, and see what rules they thought would work. That was never a secret.

Or a conspiracy.

[eldora_avalon]

Good grief!

How dare you use their one or two freely donated sentences and develop them into full-blown paragraphs and, then, give them attribution in this thread.

Dang, I guess, they sure caught you that time, MOL.

Actually it was 11 or so paragraphs, not one or two sentences. There were other things involved that seemed to go screwy later. These paragrahs were not freely given, there was a discussion going on at the time.

I think it's odd that mol would use rules word for word from someone he banned, maybe it's just me. Near as I can tell, it wasn't a bunch of people like mol claimed, it was one person.

[WiccanGoddess]

Nonetheless, Mol credited the source. What more does the creator(s) want?

[GEBS]

I can tell you that it was not word for word from one person. There were four revisions based on my input alone. And then there was input from others too that I saw.

[mol]

I think it's odd that mol would use rules word for word from someone he banned, maybe it's just me. Near as I can tell, it wasn't a bunch of people like mol claimed, it was one person.

Well, all I can say is...you are wrong.

And with that...we need to get this discussion back on track. I am not going to let this thread turn into a war about who did what and when.

[eldora_avalon]

I can tell you that it was not word for word from one person. There were four revisions based on my input alone. And then there was input from others too that I saw.

Yep, there were additions and deletions, but large portions are word for word what Roger wrote, that is why I decided to post exactly what he did write and when, so there would be less confusion. To me it looks like it is mostly Roger's stuff, I am sure to other's it looks like little of Roger's stuff is left. As has already been posted in this thread.

[Lunacie]

8. The report function is not there to be used when you lose an argument. It is there to report actions which are violations of the rules. If the admins do not see the post as a violation of these rules then there will be no moderation and we will notify the reporter of this and why no admin action was taken.


I was glad to see this rule, not because I've had a problem but because I've seen several complaints that reports were never acted on.

12. Public discussion of moderations, admin modes, and 'mol' modes is not allowed anywhere on the site except in the grievance forum. ... This goes for anything...don't even quote a moderation and say 'Thank You.' Use a karma poke instead, as some members might see that as a slap in the face. It's not worth it! No public discussion of bannings is allowed and we will NOT discuss the banning of one member with another, so don't ask!

Also for making it clear that NO response should be made to an Admin Mode post, neither negative nor positive. I'm sure that would have occurred to me eventually... ;)


One last thing... IF I should ever find myself perma-banned, how do I find your email addy, Mol?

[mol]

Yep, there were additions and deletions, but large portions are word for word what Roger wrote, that is why I decided to post exactly what he did write and when, so there would be less confusion. To me it looks like it is mostly Roger's stuff, I am sure to other's it looks like little of Roger's stuff is left. As has already been posted in this thread.
So, he has his credit now.

I would ask that you stop ignoring the fact that I have said several times this thread is about discussing the actual rules and guidelines. If I had known I needed to list every persons name that helped create the rules I would have done so...I figured a more broad explanation that they came from various sources was enough.

Now this is enough. It has been explained.

[mol]

One last thing... IF I should ever find myself perma-banned, how do I find your email addy, Mol?


If you use the 'Contact Us' link at the bottom of the page it goes to me. I will add that to the guidelines. =]

Edited to add: Actually, it's already there...where it says click HERE. I believe, even if you are banned, it will allow you to use the contact page. I will test it and make sure.

[Lunacie]

If you use the 'Contact Us' link at the bottom of the page it goes to me. I will add that to the guidelines. =]

But... if I'm banned I can't log in here to use that 'Contact Us' link?

[mol]

But... if I'm banned I can't log in here to use that 'Contact Us' link?
Even guests can use the contact link. =]

[Lunacie]

When I was temp-banned I couldn't log in even to lurk and read. Was that a glitch? I just assumed that if you were banned you were completely locked out?

[Twinkle]

Even guests can use the contact link. =]


So, if a banning occurs there is still discussion available through e-mail. Or is discussion on a case by case basis?

In other words, is it entirely possible that e-mails will be ignored by Admin because this person has violated the rules so badly that there is no negotiation available?

I wouldn't want anyone to think that they can do anything and still have a chance to negotiate later...unless they can.

[mol]

So, if a banning occurs there is still discussion available through e-mail. Or is discussion on a case by case basis?

In other words, is it entirely possible that e-mails will be ignored by Admin because this person has violated the rules so badly that there is no negotiation available?

I wouldn't want anyone to think that they can do anything and still have a chance to negotiate later...unless they can.
Twinkle, anyone can contact me anytime to discuss. And, Lunacie, you don't have to log in to use the contact form. Don't log in...if you ever find yourself banned...just log out or dont log in and use the 'Contact us' link at the bottom of the page.

[Hellenic_Witch]

It's been explained that Mol talked to the very people who are most likely to try and find the loopholes and exploit them, and see what rules they thought would work. That was never a secret.



In fact, I think that was very, very smart.

All communities evolve. This is no different.

[Twinkle]

In fact, I think that was very, very smart.

All communities evolve. This is no different.


Yep...it was smart....and people helped on good faith.

[SwordsFlameSong]

**ADMIN MODE**

Carrying messages from a banned user is not in keeping with the rules.

Just tell Mol I said he's pathetic. Totally without a shred of integrity or honor.


If a banned user has an issue with their banning or a member of this site they can share this information with us via the "Contact Us" option at the lower right hand corner of the page of email Mol.

Secondly, what happens at another site stays at another site. It wasn't that long ago that we received complaints regarding members of this community lurking at the site being linked in this post to cause problems for some members of MW. It wasn't tolerated then. It will not be tolerated now.

In the future, if you should have more concerns of this nature take them up in pm with an admin or Mol. Whether a person agrees with the rules or how they came about is a moot point. This thread is for discussion not flaming, baiting, name calling etc. The rule of RESPECT is in force regardless of the request for discussion.

Any further discussions or concerns regarding this should be taken to pm.



These are the rules as worked on by someone other than mol.



Which was pretty much what I was thinking. These weren't written by a bunch of people, they were written by one man that mol gave a promise to. Mol barely even fleshed them out and didn't even bother to fix all the grammatical errors. I wanted you guys to see word for word where most of your new rules came from. They came from a Discordian of the Subgenius variety. Someone who used to post here under another name.

http://www.erisbarandgrill.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=71735#71735

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:57 pm



http://www.erisbarandgrill.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=71844#71844

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:41 am(eastern time)



http://www.erisbarandgrill.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=71887#71887

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:04 am(eastern time)

[Xentor]

Admin mode

Let me make this clear, so everyone will understand:

The intention of this thread is to discuss the proposed rules in the 1st post, in order to make them the rules of this community.

Anyone not discussing that topic in this thread will be removed. Anyone creating new threads in order to create drama about these proposals will be removed.

This is an admin mode. Anyone addressing this post in public, will be removed as well.

[Carla O'Harris]

The Rules of Respect and MW Guidelines

1. Keep the language PG-rated, as many minors post here. "Crap" works when you want to say "shit", for example. Same goes for image files...a funny pic is fine, but porn is unacceptable. Do not post any obscene, vulgar, or sexually-explicit material here. If it can't go on public TV, it can't go here. Do not try to use NYPD Blue or Nip/Tuck as a way to argue about this rule. We have a word filter in place that has been in place for years. Do not try going around the word filter to display words that we are filtering out...and we mean that literally. Do NOT go around the word filter to display the ACTUAL WORDS we are filtering out. The filter replaces these so-called 'bad words' with other words and the words we use to replace them with change often purely for my amusement (mol).

2. Debate the idea, don't attack the poster. Calling someone "neocon filth"/"Liberal traitor"/"Fluffy bunny"/"idiot"/"dumbass"/"moron"/"crackpot"/"conservative arsehole"/"big loser", actually, any name-calling whatsoever is not a refutation of an idea, it's a verbal (yah, yah...typed, written, etc) attack of another member of this community and it will not be tolerated. Notice that we are talking about verbal attacks between members. You are free to call, for example, George Bush...a big loser, until the time comes when Mr. Bush joins the community. Then he must be respected like every other member. Also, no condescending stuff. Calling someone sweetypie, honeybunch, hun, missy, might just be the way you talk, but it can also imply a condescending tone. We have no way of knowing which way you are using the term...so if you are addressing someone directly, just use their username.

3. Racism, sexism, age discrimination, the outright bashing of a path or religion, etc is unacceptable. Debating the tenets of a religion is one thing...calling all Christians evil or saying that all Pagans are going to hell is not allowed. Proselytizing is not allowed in any form. No conversion or 'witnessing' is allowed. We are not here to spread our various religions. We are here to be friends, love and respect each other, and most importantly...learn. Tolerance is key. All religions and Paths are welcome here providing their tenets do not violate any laws or our rules. Calling someones religion "false", no matter how wrong or silly it may seem to you is not allowed.

4. No spam, advertisements, or anything of that nature is permitted via posts/PM's/or emails, unless you pay advertising fees to mysticwicks. Freeload off of someone else. Spammers are banned instantly and you won't be notified.

5. The ignore function should be used. Keep the flames to PMs, and/or put people who annoy you on ignore. Seriously. Use the ignore feature. If someone is sending you PM's that you do not like then place them on ignore and they can't send you PM's anymore. It's very simple. If someone is harassing/stalking you then PM or email an admin immediately.

6. Public posting/forwarding of PMs, karma pokes, or emails (through the site) is forbidden without the consent of the other party(s) involved unless you are sending this information to an admin to prove harassment, etc. This is private information and should be kept private.

7. Joking around is okay, but you are at the mercy of the person you are joking with. Calling your friend a "tard" is fine, provided he/she isn't offended. Please try to work out any differences of opinion on this matter via PM before reporting. YOUR next joke may inadvertently offend others; so keep that in mind before reporting someone before discussing it with them.

8. The report function is not there to be used when you lose an argument. It is there to report actions which are violations of the rules. If the admins do not see the post as a violation of these rules then there will be no moderation and we will notify the reporter of this and why no admin action was taken.

9. Political Pagan is - by nature - a very turbulent place. Things are said there that would be unacceptable anywhere else...but this does not imply that you can get away with murder. The rules are relaxed there, not non-existent. And remember...what happens in Political Pagan STAYS in Political Pagan. See rule #2.

10. All goodbye threads will be closed because all they do is cause drama in the long run, unless they are legitimate 'goodbyes' like, for example, you are moving, losing your internet connection, or something of that nature. If you want to leave MW that is your choice, PM your friends and let them know, but don't make a public spectacle of it.

11. Arguments are NOT to be carried from one thread or forum to another. Neither will things said on other forums be used as cause for discipline here...but by the same token, arguments from off-site STAY off-site. Private, real life problems between members needs to be settled in private and off of the public boards.

12. Public discussion of moderations, admin modes, and 'mol' modes is not allowed anywhere on the site except in the grievance forum. Please read the guidelines for the grievance forum below. If you violate the rules outlined here then you will be moderated. It serves several purposes, of which the most important is getting threads back on track and showing real examples of these rules in action. This goes for anything...don't even quote a moderation and say 'Thank You.' Use a karma poke instead, as some members might see that as a slap in the face. It's not worth it! No public discussion of bannings is allowed and we will NOT discuss the banning of one member with another, so don't ask!

13. Nobody is above the rules, whether they be a mod, an admin, etc.



Grievance Forum Guidelines

If an admin moderates your post you have the option of discussing the moderation in the Grievance Forum. By starting a thread in this forum you are requesting the moderation to be reviewed by the admins. Only the person moderated can start threads to discuss the moderation. No one can start it on behalf of another poster. No admin will start a thread to discuss a moderation. The discussion of the moderation will include any or all of the admins that choose to participate in the discussion. Only the original poster and admins can participate in the discussion. If there is no progress towards a resolution the thread will be closed. It is for discussions and clarification, not arguments. If there is no explanation of how the moderated post does not break the rules then there is no need for the thread.

Posting in the Grievance Forum is optional. The option to PM an admin about the moderation is still available and encouraged if the member feels the moderation is unjust but does not feel comfortable with publicly viewable discussion.

No discussion of the topics in the grievance forum should happen anywhere else on the site. (See Rule #12)

This forum is for public viewing of constructive conversation regarding moderations and not a license to publicly harass, bash or criticize the administration or other members. Threads are only to be started for legitimate disagreements with a specific moderation. Threads started without refutation of a moderation will be closed. Threads for general concerns are not allowed. Please use the Site Room for discussion of that sort.

Abuse of these rules in the Grievance Forum will lead to the poster being banned.



Now for the fine print, only...it's not so fine...it's the same size as all the rest:

All messages express the views of the author (meaning the post's author), and not the administrators of Mystic Wicks nor will the administrators or Mystic Wicks be held responsible for the content of any message.

If you feel a message is in violation of our rules and/or policies then PLEASE REPORT THE POST using the report link located in the menu underneath each post. This goes for posts made by administrators as well (after all, the admins are members of this community, too). Even if you feel someone may have already reported it...report it anyway. It's not tattling. With that said, members don't need to be politically correct all the time. Posted material may offend you. If so, step back and wonder whether it was meant to hurt you specifically. Then you may want to report it. Otherwise, learn from it or toss it aside.

The administrators of Mystic Wicks Online Pagan Community and Spiritual Sanctuary have the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread/post/signature/avatar/profile pic/etc for any reason. PERIOD! Why? Because I am sure some troll will come along eventually and find a way to skirt around the rules outlines above. It always happens. One thing that has made MW the great place that it is, is the absolute intolerance for trolls and trolling in any form.

All posts are the property of the individuals who contributed them unless otherwise specified or deemed inappropriate by the rules and guidelines. User-specific data is property of Mystic Wicks. Please do not copy any information without first contacting the site admins and/or the respective author of the previously mentioned information.

In the case of a moved thread the thread originator is notified with a link to its new location. If your thread is moved to a different forum than you originally posted it in and you feel it was not moved properly, then report the first post in the thread with a message stating WHY you feel it was wrong to move the thread and specify the forum you would like it moved back into. If, after reviewing the thread, the admins feel it should be moved back then it will be moved back. If this happens with your own thread, contact the admin or mod who moved it.

User names and accounts are never deleted (unless a user account has been dormant for more than one year and has 0 posts) so please don't ask us to do so. This would totally disrupt the flow of threads. Members cannot have more than one user name. If we (admins) find out that a member is posting under two usernames we will merge those usernames after contacting the member in question and verifying that this is, indeed, the case. If you forget your log-in, contact an admin. If you want to change your user name, contact an admin. If you have registered twice and posted under several different accounts and want them merged then please contact an administrator.

We take copyrights very seriously here. To view our 'Fair Use' policy....click here (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=12340).

If you have been banned and would like to come back to the forum then please note our 'appeals' process. First, no one that has been banned will be considered for reinstatement until 3 months after their ban (some exceptions can be made depending on the nature of the ban...read on.) Please contact me (mol) if you would like your forum privileges re-instated. We don't like banning ANYONE, so we always have open eyes and ears if someone really wants to be here. So, again, email me (mol) if you would like to be re-instated.