A Confusing ShoutBox Rule

[Lucetta]

Original Rule: "Bringing up hot topics such as Politics or Religion.  If you feel the need for this type of discussion, open a thread in the PROC forum." (This Rule is Posted Here.)

Proposed Replacement: "The ShoutBox is no place for social activism. As such, certain topics are not to be discussed within The ShoutBox. The PROC Forum is more suited for topics such as politics, religion or other matters similarly relative to society as a whole. Examples: <Basically, staff agrees upon and inserts a list of helpful examples here such as the state of public education, minimum wage, gossip about politicians' personal lives, etcetera>.

Reasoning: I found a usability error in this rule due to PROC not being the literal name of an existing forum, but a link resolves the issue of the at-first-confusing slang. Beyond that, the spirit of the rule needs to be illuminated a little. It literally just bans the discussion of Politics and Religion in the ShoutBox. It does nothing to warn people of topics that Staff for their own reasons will consider related enough to ban users over. I feel that this is a good time for Staff to gather and agree upon listing some important examples to better educate members and avoid misunderstandings.

[RedPhoenix]

I think the original rule is much more clear than the proposed change, although I would agree with replacing "PROC" with the name of the forum.

[Lucetta]

I think the original rule is much more clear than the proposed change, although I would agree with replacing "PROC" with the name of the forum.

This rule just seems completely unclear to me. After learning the intention of this rule firsthand, I am convinced that it is written very poorly.

A member might discuss a topic that is not literally politics or religion such as traffic laws in Germany being stupid because of this and that and suddenly end up punished for it by Elliquiy staff when there is no context for it in the rule itself. All because someone in chat got offended over someone else's opinion of German traffic law somehow and the rule was only enforced in the vague sense as a technicality. This is just one example of why I feel the rule needs to be amended. As it stands now, it barely communicates its intent relative to how it is enforced.

[RedPhoenix]

If the rule is meant to ban discussion of traffic law in Germany I agree it is badly stated. Whether it is intended to do that I will defer to the people who wrote it.

[Cassandra LeMay]

I agree that the reference to "PROC" may perhaps be made clearer.

But how is debate about laws not political? If you start calling the traffic laws in country X stupid you are talking politics - because politicians tend to make the laws. And if people want to really talk about stuff like that they can switch to the approved box, PM, or whatever works for them.

My understanding always was that the SB should be a place for relaxed chats because that is one of the first things people see after they create an account on E. I think that should be the first and foremost rule, and when in doubt - err on the side of caution.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

It also bears noting that what might be a hot topic to one person might not be to another. In my family, religion is not a hot topic, but hockey... ooh, boy. Thanksgivings have been destroyed over it. That said, I'm almost certain the administrative staff feel little to no need to police discussion of who won the game. How dogs, falcons and horses are raised (and judgements thereof) are typical Sunday dinner talk, since it is something my family has been doing for generations and might come across as condescending to someone, but doesn't seem to necessarily fit under the guise of the rule as mentioned. Where, then, does the Dakota Access Pipeline stand in this? The Women's marches  as of late? Are these hot topics, or natual subjects of discussion in the landscape of the world we know? They're not wholly political, since there are other factors that are listed. Socio-political, religious, scientific, educational... infrastructure... topics that seem to be common in my world, and I might not think of them twice in discussion if a rule isn't somewhat clearer.

Personally, I've never found much value in speaking on many other topics, so I might naturally gravitate towards them if it's not made clearer WHY these topics are considered "hot" and particularly what subjects are noted there. I've been in trouble on multiple occasions over the vagueness of rules like these, which assume that all people are raised with a culturally similar recognition for what other people are comfortable with. This is simply not the case. If a baseline of American moderate liberalism is being used (which is perfectly fine, very pleasant and suburban way of doing things) then the definition of expectations has to reflect that. Simply saying "be good to each other" opens up a whole can of worms.

Without going into too much detail, I've been castrated in the past because what I saw - from my upbringing and my values - as being respectful enough to be honest, where holding one's tongue is considered insulting, was seen as disrespectful and aggressive in other cases ( my people are an aggressive lot, that can't be helped). Without a clearer definition on guidelines like these, it's all too easy for people to fall into a trap of being punished for saying something that is normal and typical for them, because it doesn't fit into what someone else defines as polite. It is culturally subjective and requires more definitive guidelines in order to be legally viable.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

I agree that the reference to "PROC" may perhaps be made clearer.

But how is debate about laws not political? If you start calling the traffic laws in country X stupid you are talking politics - because politicians tend to make the laws. And if people want to really talk about stuff like that they can switch to the approved box, PM, or whatever works for them.

I agree, to a point. If someone was complaining about the traffic in L.A. for instance, and someone in Toronto brought up the 401, that's not particularly political, but carries a point of territorial pride with it. People in those districts, however, might not think twice about mentioning it because it's such a common discussion, it borders on "So... how's the weather?" That said, it does take into account law and infrastructure, which is political to an arbitrary point, as well.

[Cassandra LeMay]

As much as I would love to compare notes on international law (so I must admit my specialty is more arbitration and mediation than statutory law), this being me at 7am and having had about 2 hours of sleep in the last 24 hours I'll just sum up a breif reply:

Would the reply you are about to post in the SB make Elli look more or less welcoming to you if you were a first time visitor? If your answer is "kinda maybe", or "it's not so cool", or perhaps "let me think about this site for a minute" you should not post it - or at least seriously think about rewording it.

That's all the rule we need.

Do onto others...

[Blythe]

Cassandra LeMay's got the right of it.

That being said, Staff has taken note that the PROC reference itself is confusing (as not everyone is familiar with that acronym), and we'll discuss a slight revision to make that more clear (adding the hyperlink to the board itself to the rule is a very good suggestion, and we'll do that!), though we are not going to list every hot topic that can't be discussed, because that would

1) Be exhausting and probably would end up losing the spirit of the intended rule
and
2) Would only encourage needless rules-lawyering, unfortunately. While it would be nice to have an itemized list of 'what specific hot topics not to talk about' in theory, in practice it wouldn't function as well as a general rule that asks our members to use their best judgement and sense, knowing specifically that politics, religion, and other big name controversies are definitely a no-go for the SB, with the tacit understanding that the SB is meant to be a welcoming place.

Going to close this for now. Thank you for your input everyone; it's greatly appreciated. :)