[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by NatCh

I couldn't agree more. We haven't just started working on this, it's been developing for some time. As I said, part of it is the complexity, and deciding exactly where to draw that line, but part of it is also the Volunteer Workers thing.

I've been a moderator elsewhere. I quite understand.

Again, you'll get no argument on that point, in fact the taking down concern is a motivating factor.

I'd call it the main factor, frankly.

Nope, we're not interested in trying to be so inoffensive as to make the place bland and lifeless. We are interested in keeping the community a respectful one, but that's not really the topic under discussion here.

That wasn't quite what I meant. I was basically saying I'd shy away from content rules intended to placate the most restrictive jurisdictions, because laws (and the attitudes that spawn them) differ elsewhere in the world.

As you point out, the fundamental question is where to draw the line.

That's the rule of thumb we've been operating under, thus far, but it's recently become clear that we need to create a stated set of guidelines/policies for some things. Trouble is, as clear as the need for a line is, it's hard to draw any sort of precise line that means anything.

You don't need to draw a precise line. You need to provide a clear set of principles you use in drawing the line in any particular case.

I was a moderator of a bunch of electronic forums back in the early 90's. In a discussion in the moderator's area about rules, I stated I didn't want detailed rules for all contingencies. I wanted a legal framework I could use when I had to make judgments.

And when I did have to put on my moderator hat, I found it most effective to not only talk about the rule in question, but also why the rule existed and the purpose it served. My experience was that the vast majority of my participants wanted to be good on-line citizens, and when they understood the purpose of a rule were happy to comply. It was for the good of the net and the continued successful functioning of the forums, and I wasn't simply being arbitrary. (I must have done something right: there was a formal channel where users could complain the network management about moderators. I never got one. I did get nice comments holding me up as an example of how to do it...)

Well, we clearly want to avoid anything that will draw the ill-will of lawyer types, but we also are interested in complying with the law for it's own sake for a number of varied ethical and practical reasons. That's a difficult and complicated thing to do when the law is on copyrights, toss in the DMCA, and it gets beyond crazy real quick. The recent move to a Canadian server was aimed at simplifying some of these questions.

Complying with what law? That's the problem I mean.

Moving to a Canadian server is one good move. The site owner actually living in Switzerland also helps. If someone wants to take legal action against MR, it's not a simple matter.

We are indeed less notorious, however, we've also developed a fairly high profile in a more "respectable" way. We have been given reasons to believe that we're ... observed by various companies. Some of those reasons have ... clarified the need for a clear set of guidelines.

Precisely. MR is probably the largest and best known site devoted to such things. As such, it has achieved higher visibility, and stuff posted here will be more likely to be noticed. When people who are executives in some part of the industry or other pop up here unbidden to talk about what they are up to or explain what might be going on, you have to assume they feel this is a good place to reach a lot of interested parties.

The difficulty is in coming up with something that sufficiently covers the bases, but which can also be lived with, and which we can grow with as situations change, and doing it all on an "as we have a few minutes" basis.

Like I said, don't try to craft rules. Espouse principles that can be used as the basis of rules, but leave the actual rules to case-by-case basis enforcement.
______
Dennis