Member Survey: Overhauling the Rules' Text

[Debater Slayer]

Sorry it took me a few days to get back to this. I have been dealing with a medical issue, and I'm going on a forum break soon partially because of that.

I beg to differ. What "current rating system" reference are you referring to in the rules on this page? If you are talking about the infraction system, I'm gonna have to ask when did staff stop using it and with what was it replaced by and who authorised and did they really have the authority to authorise it?

I'm talking about the rating system that has the likes, "Winner," "Useful," etc., not the infraction system.

That felt rude. I get it but still and it still feels like you took this all Way too personal.

I didn't take it personally; I asked because I had stated earlier in the thread that moderation would remain confidential. I know that some people, me included, sometimes respond to threads before reading all replies, hence my question.

But you don't understand why your word isn't suffect to quell concerns? You are one person. In a thread that's having a broad discussion about general topics of moderation. It fails to reassure me if you are head staff or not, you are one person. I don't know if there is a dictator behind the scenes or has someone talked y'all into a base democracy so you only have one vote or what the structure is. I know the past and I some of the recent past. But the current structure, I'm just a new as a fresh account.

The RF staff are volunteers. There are admins and mods. There is no one person who is head staff or otherwise unilaterally in charge of forum-related decisions.

I do. I have. And it's why the ignore function exists. And it's something that pops up in long running communities. People rub each other wrong from time to time. How everyone handles it, makes the bigger difference. But thinking it never happens, is not good.

I didn't say that it "never happens"; I said that I don't know of anyone on RF whom the majority want to kick out. Even if they wanted that, the consensus system of the staff would ensure that no decision was unilateral or arbitrary; the vote would have to be based on the forum rules.

What rating system? If you talking about the reactions at the bottom of the post, everybody would be better off if they were yanked off the platform entirely. It's as troublesome as the frubals.

Many members expressed interest in having the current reactions reinstated after last year's software update, so we will keep them per members' wishes. There have also been no problems stemming from them so far.

These rules on this page doesn't need to change.

So staff at this other website is asking to change the rules without stating what the rules to be changed too? I don't like it one bit. I can't talk about it with other regulars in their forums. I have to discuss it on some other platform. They happen to have a neat little rule that gets brought out to shut down discussion when it gets too hot, about discussing things in public...even though staff joined in the thread, so many times it's come down to 'you got to know the rules' and the people and hopeful stay on everyone's good side cause their staff aint that big. It don't pay to **** off the powers that be, ya know. There is always two sets of rules but only one set counts. And when happens that some clamor for changing the rules, its because they haven't been following the rules for a long time.

I'm not clear on precisely what you mean by the above quote, but the fundamentals of the forum rules will not change, as I said earlier. We will only update certain parts to add clarity, transparency, and alignment with certain software features (e.g., the rating system).

But in all seriousness, change the font. It's unreadable as it is.

Yes, that's one of the items on the list. The formatting and font of the rules' text could do with some changes.