Did anyone put our rules on ignore?

Sometimes I actually have to check the rules to see how on earth TAZ discourse seems to be a different planet than what's stated here:
https://theadminzone.com/help/terms

Rules said:

Be Welcoming!
When newcomers arrive, welcome them to our growing community.

Be Courteous!
Don't attack others. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully ... without insult and personal attack.

Be Appropriate!
There may be places where explicit, obscene or vulgar language, graphics or behavior is appropriate however the Admin Zone is not one of those places. Posts containing explicit, obscene or vulgar language will be removed.

Be Nice!
TAZ is a community and our members are our primary resource. Please play nicely with others whether you agree with them or not. Don't taunt or otherwise bully your fellow Tazmanians!

Click to expand...

Did anyone put our rules on ignore?

Its amazing how experience community administrators can go so overboard and make TAZ into drama-central. Why do you think admins allow themselves to post here in a manner they would not allow on their own site(s)?

I was a member here through acquisition of AAF - I didn't _technically_ agree to the rules until May this year

i have a tendency to roll to the beat of my own drum, i know the rules in most places online and in life but do not fret about staying within the guidelines . I live my life with good moral compass and if that drives me out of certain areas because of their rules or standards then i just wont return it’s that easy

....for this i am both loved and hated

Good is subjective. Anyone who seems to enjoy the idea of someone else having a heart attack has some questionable morals.

Alfa1 said:

So does accepting these rules constitute a change in posting style for you? Or more reference to the rules?

Click to expand...

It doesn't change anything for me, it was merely an observation that I didn't technically agree to them - but if you look at my posts prior to May 2018 and now, I don't think there's any significant difference. All of the rules are variations on the theme of 'don't be a jackass to other people' and while I might disagree with some people, even heatedly, I think I generally don't step over the lines.

Pete said:

Good is subjective. Anyone who seems to enjoy the idea of someone else having a heart attack has some questionable morals.

Click to expand...

You really took that literally? and you was offended by it? maybe you should reconsider “whats terrible” because you seem a degree off - respectfully

fixer said:

You really took that literally?

Click to expand...

Given that 80%+ of communication is non-verbal, and I only have the words you type to go by, and given your general disdain for people, I assumed it was meant literally. Me being on the autism spectrum doesn't exactly help.

So, let me understand, I'm supposed to let you insult me and when I don't like it (especially given that my father died of a heart attack), it's somehow my fault. OK, good to know. Have a nice day.

Pete said:

Given that 80%+ of communication is non-verbal, and I only have the words you type to go by, and given your general disdain for people, I assumed it was meant literally. Me being on the autism spectrum doesn't exactly help.

So, let me understand, I'm supposed to let you insult me and when I don't like it (especially given that my father died of a heart attack), it's somehow my fault. OK, good to know. Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

wow

I like to believe that I'm a person that abides by the rules (wherever they are applied), but sometimes rules have to be flexible because not every situation can be rolled up into a neat little parcel. My opinion of rules are that if they are cast in stone and immovable they are the dictates of a dictatorship; if the rules can be flexible then a modicum of compassion and empathy can be applied. That may not be acceptable to some, but that's my way of thinking. I will obey the rules and observe them as best I can, but if a situation arises where I have no control over the outcome, then I would expect the rules to be flexible enough to take that position into account.

To flagrantly flout the rules is unacceptable, to work within them and allow them room to change and adapt, well that's a different story.

I'll give you an example (a real life example of a friend): The local council are demanding a letter to confirm a person's income; the rules say that if this person does not supply the letter by X date then all benefits will be stopped. The person informs the local council that HMRC has not sent out the letter they want, but it's in the pipeline. Now, does the council A] apply the rules and penalise this person because HMRC has not sent the letter they want, or B] do they say, well it's not your fault that you do not as yet have the letter, just send it to us as soon as it arrives?

Inflexible rules can penalise where there is no blame on the party the blame is being applied to.

Thoughts?

I think it's because some people know that irl some companies when they state something is store policy and they cannot return a item for cash back,only store credit. Then after a while of arguing,they give in and give the person their cash back,which isn't store policy. And probably think the same applies online with forums,where they keep arguing and think the owners or mods will eventually give in.

but that's just my 2 cents

I'm sure I've said this before, rules are not for users, they are for staff to wield when users misbehave.

zappaDPJ said:

I'm sure I've said this before, rules are not for users, they are for staff to wield when users misbehave.

Click to expand...

Silly admin, you do not wield the rules - you wield Mjölnir, Hammer of Bans.

Being honest, I very rarely read rules on forums. If you've been around forums for a while, you should understand the basics of how you are expected to behave. That said, even moderators and admins can have someone get under their skin from time to time. It doesn't happen to me often, but

The only time I've actually gotten mad at someone on TAZ is when an ex-moderator from our former community started passive aggressively attacking me here, purely by association. The new site is under different ownership, so not sure why someone would bother. I didn't personally know him. Sometimes mods are removed for a reason and I asked about him, and there were reasons. I just blocked that person, permanently, so no issues since.

I have actually blocked a member on our own forum for a time, so I wouldn't be tempted to respond to him. He wasn't exactly breaking any rules, but he was being deliberately antogonistic toward me, following me around and replying to all of my posts in ways that pulled my posts out of context. It was subtle enough for him to have plausible deniability. I made a thread in mod forums "I'm blocking x til he gets tired of me. You guys watch him." There are two other admins, so was okay to use this method. Anyway, it worked. I unblocked after a few weeks, and he stopped being bothersome because he got no responses. He's been suspended a few times for other things, and I COULD have suspended him for this, but he'd probably cry about bias. Sometimes you have to use the tools at your disposal. lol.

Honestly, I don't read them. I've been around long enough to know what is and is not acceptable and how to bend/skate the rules if I really want to. Let's be honest about it: you'll find a reason to ban/warn/delete/edit things considered unacceptable whenever it is needed. You'll even make up new rules or edit the rules in cases where you find the current ones don't give enough justification for these actions. A lot of staff on forums don't even follow the rules they enforce. I know of one very large forum that skates the law by telling everyone it exists for "harm reduction" and ban hammers anyone attempt to sell drugs on it while the admins/mods enjoy a lucrative drug dealing business via PMs and their private "kool kids only" forum.

Not a personal attack on you just how I've seen most every forum operate in my many years using them. I've gotten where I prefer places that allow everything and give the users tools to filter things they don't like. As long as it isn't blatant spam and child porn I take little issue with it. The rules, like the TOS, merely exists to cover the ass of the admin should legal trouble come his way.