New Site Policy Statement for your review

[Monty]

Did anyone notice, Jeff... has changed his avatar. Did someone mention something to him?

EDIT: Dang it! Still trying to get in ahead of DaveO.... gotta type faster I guess...

 

[cskipper]

lol! You're right, that's the thread I was thnking about. I swear Dave must have at least two computers - and types with his toes and his hands!

 

[SteveColes]

I just noticed that the NCWW Site Policies have been placed in the floating menu. Will there be an announcement about that, or are folks just to discover it on their own, like I did?

Dave

That floating menu is still for test. So I am pretending only you can see it.

 

[SteveColes]

I would like to more feedback on my suggested "actions" in the cases that I described above.

 

[clowman]

I'll put my input in


1. Screwed user name: I too find it funny, but probally not for my kids to see. The policy is sound. Change it

2. GotWood user name: No problem with it.

3. GotWood avatar: Is it political.. yes.... can you tell what "side" he is on? Maybe. Could spark a debate either way. If we say this has to be removed. I would probally be inclined to also exclued any pictures of celebrities.

4. Jeff's avatar: I realize this avatar has been changed at this point. But I find myself personally torn by this. I can't support a policy that would deny my personal religion, but I would support a policy that would deny another religion. So.. see how I am torn? I'm still torn.... I don't know what to say regarding a policy ... after thinking about it.. I'm still torn..

5. My signature: No problem. You are not preaching, nor are you stating a specific religion.

 

[Monty]

1 & 2. Screwed's username & GotWood's username - These are covered, but since it's "unintentional" I'll bet the members will be surprised that we even thought that something may be inappropriate about them. I guess at least now we have a policy to point to. Hopefully with the new username guidelines this issue will be minimized.

3. GotWood's avatar - Again, now we have a policy to point to.

4. jeff.. avatar - Moot point now, but under your guidelines the old avatar would have been changed.

5. My signature - That's actually a pretty good signature if you ask me.


In all of this discussion I have determined that it must be nearly impossible to offend me. I personally saw nothing wrong with any of the above issues. But I understand the reasons behind the guidelines and I think stating these things up front will probably prevent a lot of the need for intervention in the future.

 

[chris99z71]

Screwed and GotWood - As Steve pointed out, "unintentional or not" pretty much covers this. There's definately a double entendre there. If you have a policy, either follow it to the letter or change the policy.

GotWood's avitar - Poor guy's going to think that we're out to get him, but again, a policy is a policy and now it's in writing.

Jeff...'s avatar - The policy states "so long as the usage is in a
positive manner and is not to used to evangelize a person’s religious point of view." Saying "I love Jesus" is a statement about one's self and I don't see it as directly or overtly evangelical.

Steve's sig line - Again, it's positive and not being used to evangelize.

 

[McRabbet]

Let pose the the following. Once aversion of this statement is published. What would be the correct, if any, actions to be taken in the following cases.

!. Screwed's username
2. GotWood's username
3. GotWood's avatar
4. jeff.. avatar
5. My signature

1. Screwed's username - Violates policy; should be changed
2. GotWood's username - I do not think there is any double entendre here -- I think we are all very happy that we've got wood to use! It is equivalent to "NeedWood", "LoveWood" or "HaveWood".
3. GotWood's avatar - Very political and must be changed
4. jeff.. avatar - It has been borderline and should have been changed some time ago -- but I think we all feared losing Jeff... after his tenuous start... It has been changed, but I do not know who prompted it.
5. My signature - Not a religious statement, but a personal statement of self-worthiness. I think it is fine. If someone had a signature line that said "God Bless America", I think it would be acceptable, too, but "God Rules" would not.

Rob

 

[SteveColes]

Jeff...'s avatar - The policy states "so long as the usage is in a
positive manner and is not to used to evangelize a person’s religious point of view." Saying "I love Jesus" is a statement about one's self and I don't see it as directly or overtly evangelical.

Chris you are looking at that portion of the exception as though it applies to all religous content; it doesn't? The sentence starts with "The use of the word God "

My intent with this policy is to make very clear what our(my) policy is. What I am trying to do is to minimize the constant discusion about what's allowed and what's not. The problem with a policy such as this, is that some good stuff is thrown out with the bad.

My intent with the five examples is to test whether or not the policy is clear enough that all of us come to the same conclusion.

So here is what I hoped your answers would be, in line with I wanted the policy to be.

1. Screwed's username - Double entendre, intentional or not;Violates policy; user is suspended until changed.

2. GotWood's username - Double entendre, intentional or not;; user is suspended until changed.

3. GotWood's avatar - Political statement; Must be deleted immediately by webmaster or admin or mod with the right privilages.

4. jeff.. avatar - Religious in nature, is NOT covered by exception rule; Must be deleted immediately by webmaster or admin or mod with the right privilages.

5. My signature - Religious in nature, but is covered by exception; no action.

If you find that the policy allows wiggle room or interpretation in these 5 cases, then I need to make the policy clearer. If the action to be taken is not clear.Then again, I have to tighen up the statement.

Your thoughts??

 

[chris99z71]

Chris you are looking at that portion of the exception as though it applies to all religous content; it doesn't? The sentence starts with "The use of the word God "

So the statement "I love God" is different than "I love Jesus"? Not trying to be a PITA, just trying to make sure that I understand.

 

[SteveColes]

So the statement "I love God" is different than "I love Jesus"? Not trying to be a PITA, just trying to make sure that I understand.

No they aren't. They are exactly the same. But, both shouldn't be in one's signature. where as God bless you or Jesus bless you is fine.

 

[SteveColes]

So the statement "I love God" is different than "I love Jesus"? Not trying to be a PITA, just trying to make sure that I understand.

No they aren't. They are exactly the same. But, both shouldn't be in one's signature. where as God bless you or Jesus bless you is fine.

Wow, do I feel like Scrooge. Chris I am not by any shot, anti-religion. I know that the above seems to be splitting hairs. But that is not what is intended

I am trying to say, that Statements of religious belief have no place on this site, whether or no it is I believe in God or a complete recitation of the Nicaean creed.

However, I don't want us to to be to so uptight that statements such as God bless you and Merry Christmas are forbidden, so therefore the exception.

"I love God" is a direct statement of a religious belief. "God bless you" is a common statement, a greeting.

Somebody, please help explain and/or come up with better wording for the statement of policy. Clearly my wording is not good enough:BangHead:

 

[toolferone]

Wow! I guess I am like Monty, Most of these did not raise my own personal flag. Clearly I am not used to thinking on such a broad scale. Woodcraft sells a "Got Wood" t-shirt! I totally get all the double/triple meanings, but I guess they went over my head.

"Why can't we all just get along" This has been my motto on life/world/peace for a very long time. Since I know it doesn't really work that way, we have to have rules and guidelines to help make this work. That being said I think Steve's guidelines should work just fine in our little corner of the earth. I hope to grow up to be just like Steve .

 

[cskipper]

Okay, I confess that I don't really remember exactly what Jeff's avatar said, but here's my $.02 worth.

Your proposed policy says that "the use of the word God or any of the hundreds of other words that denote a "higher power" or any words that refer to an aspect of that higher power or a Prophet of that higher power may be used so long as the usage is in a positive manner and is not to be used evangelize a person's religious point of view." To decide if a statement of "I believe in Jesus" falls outside that guideline, I'd look at interchanging the word Jesus. If it said I believe in chairs I wouldn't be saying that I really want you to believe in chairs too. Granted religion is much more controversial than chairs.

If Jeff's avatar, or anybody's avatar or signature simply state that they believe in any God (or similar names as noted above) I think that it meets the letter of this policy. They would be simply stating their belief and are not saying that anyone else needs to agree with them, therefore not evangelizing. I agree with all that this is really splitting hairs and could lead us down a path where we don't really want to go. What if someone wants to post that they believe in Satan? Or anything that would probably mostly offend most of us? Let's face it, we have members who would accept this as a challenge to see how far they could push the limit before they are "censored" (actually, on any given day, most of the folks who can see this post are among those folks).

If this in the policy and meant to prevent avatars like Jeff's was, it would need to be restated. Do I know of a way to define what you are trying to say that would allow folks to say things like God bless, be blessed but restrict stating a personal belief, nope.

So, I guess that I'd leave the statement as written, wouldn't have asked Jeff to change his avatar and your signature is fine (of course, I think your signature is fine either way). I think that Screwed needed to change his name, GotWood might have (being a woodworking site, all I thought of was the milk commercial) and GotWood's avatar would have to be changed.

I know that I have asked that a couple of threads be deleted/modified but also feel that this issue will only be made more slippery by trying to define it any further. Sorry, I'm sure that my $.02 worth (probably at least $.05 worth just due the wordiness) probably doesn't help at all.

 

[Monty]

hehehe... I figured this would get kind of muddy. :lol: OK, now let's throw another log on the fire: our newest member curley filled in his biography as follows:

... I am a follower of Jesus Christ and praise Him for what He has done for me.

:eusa_danc

 

[DaveO]

I think that there is nothing wrong with having that in your profile. Having that as your signature or avatar would be crossing the lines, but his profile doesn't appear with every post he makes.
Dave

 

[Ray Martin]

I agree with Dave. The bio is supposed to be where we describe ourselves. If we can't say anything but woodworking stuff, I'd have to take out the line about being a baseball coach.

The bio is only seen if we go looking for it, so it does not count as preaching.

I'd leave it as it is.

Ray

 

[Ray Martin]

.
.
.

... but also feel that this issue will only be made more slippery by trying to define it any further...

Cathy has made a very important point here (IMHO). We can and should have guidelines for the site, because we have defined this site as limited in scope... a community of woodworkers, with the emphasis on woodworking topics. We can, however, carry the definition so far as to make it burdensome. If we try to create an absolute definition, we will create the Orwellian nightmare.

What we already have is a well written guideline. When this guideline is followed by the members, we have a terrific site. When it is violated, albeit innocently, we have moderators and administrators who can make individual or collective judgement calls... and the site stays terrific.

Ray

 

[SteveColes]

Thank you Cathy, your analysis has clarified my thinking and pointed out that the wording of my "exception" is too broad. I think I can change it to make clearer. Next draft tomorrow.

Okay, I confess that I don't really remember exactly what Jeff's avatar said, but here's my $.02 worth.

Your proposed policy says that "the use of the word God or any of the hundreds of other words that denote a "higher power" or any words that refer to an aspect of that higher power or a Prophet of that higher power may be used so long as the usage is in a positive manner and is not to be used evangelize a person's religious point of view." To decide if a statement of "I believe in Jesus" falls outside that guideline, I'd look at interchanging the word Jesus. If it said I believe in chairs I wouldn't be saying that I really want you to believe in chairs too. Granted religion is much more controversial than chairs.

If Jeff's avatar, or anybody's avatar or signature simply state that they believe in any God (or similar names as noted above) I think that it meets the letter of this policy. They would be simply stating their belief and are not saying that anyone else needs to agree with them, therefore not evangelizing. I agree with all that this is really splitting hairs and could lead us down a path where we don't really want to go. What if someone wants to post that they believe in Satan? Or anything that would probably mostly offend most of us? Let's face it, we have members who would accept this as a challenge to see how far they could push the limit before they are "censored" (actually, on any given day, most of the folks who can see this post are among those folks).

If this in the policy and meant to prevent avatars like Jeff's was, it would need to be restated. Do I know of a way to define what you are trying to say that would allow folks to say things like God bless, be blessed but restrict stating a personal belief, nope.

So, I guess that I'd leave the statement as written, wouldn't have asked Jeff to change his avatar and your signature is fine (of course, I think your signature is fine either way). I think that Screwed needed to change his name, GotWood might have (being a woodworking site, all I thought of was the milk commercial) and GotWood's avatar would have to be changed.

I know that I have asked that a couple of threads be deleted/modified but also feel that this issue will only be made more slippery by trying to define it any further. Sorry, I'm sure that my $.02 worth (probably at least $.05 worth just due the wordiness) probably doesn't help at all. It helps a lot

 

[chris99z71]

Steve, don't feel like Scrooge! I feel like I'm being a troll, but I really was just trying to clarify. The point that you're not anti-religion is well taken as is the concept that it's not the mission of our site to insite religious debates. I think that I have a better understanding of the mission now.