[Understandably] there seems to be some confusion regarding rules for threads about members. I'm going to suggest a diyyuk, provide some examples, and hopefully the membership will offer feedback so we can collectively try to understand the rules.

I would suggest that there's a difference between addressing a particular member and speaking about, discussing, or speculating about a particular member.

1. Mazal tov Melech on you birthday.
Mazal tov Melech on your engagement to Lauren.

Acceptable: Here you're really addressing the member and wishing a mazal tov even if it's worded as if it's an announcement addressed to the general memberhsip.
Of course, it goes without saying that Melech has either let his birthday be known, or has specifically ok'd the mazal tov announcement.

2. Whatever happened to Melech?

Not acceptable: It's a thread discussing or speculating about a particular member.
Of course, it goes without saying that those who answer with information known from real life [He was just at my house two weeks ago; I was at his wedding; I saw someone in BP who told me...] are also violating board guidelines.

I miss Melech.

Acceptable if he hasn't been posting. Not acceptable if he has been banned and can't respond. Not acceptable if we start discussing Melech.

3. What's the berachah for oat? Or for Melech: How halachah changes

Acceptable: You're addressing a member.
Of course, it goes without saying that if the thread is insulting it violates other rules.

4. What is Melech's occupation/gender/marital status?

Not acceptable: Your speculating about a member if it's information that member has attempted to obscure. Even if the member has volunteered her marital status, "outing" the member or speculating that the member is lying is not acceptable when that's the purpose of the thread.

Of course, it goes without saying that information from real life is against other board guidelines.

5. Melech, this thread/link/scan is for you.

Acceptable: You're addressing the member. Let's say I asked in a thread the origin of a practice. Answering in that thread would be off topic and then the off topic police would get upset. So the member starts another thread and calls my attention to the thread. So too if a member is well known for taking a certain position. A thread title can address a member where the news link or YouTube link or scan is known to be of particular interest to the member.

6. Melech, happy birthday.

Not acceptable if Melech has been banned or for some other reason cannot respond to or have access to the forum in which the thread is posted.

7. Melech is engaged to Lauren! Mazal Tov!

Acceptable.
This is an exception. You are discussing the member and not addressing the member. However, there is no way that thread could have been started without the express permission of the subject of the thread are therefore there is explicit permission to discuss the member.

8. Members who only use term X on h.com: Do they use this term in real life?

Not acceptable.
Of course, the proper forum for such questions is probably the member forum and not bull.
In this case, the thread starter is intending to discuss a certain member, especially when it's only one member who does so routinely. That the thread starter didn't mention the member by name is immaterial when we all know who the thread starter is talking about - the thread starter is discussing a member indirectly.
Such a thread would seem to violate the rule of not starting threads to discuss specific members.

9. Member who use certain terms on h.com: Do they use these terms in real life?

Acceptable.
The thread starter isn't starting a thread to discuss a certain member. Rather, the question is about in general members using terms on h.com they wouldn't in real life. For example, SDJ - many members use that term on h.com and it's legitimate to ask the tzibbur if they do so in real life.

10. What do you think about the practice of doing X?

Acceptable.
It's acceptable even if the opening all but refers to a particular member admitting to doing X in another thread and it's clear as day this is an offshoot of that other discussion. With the caveat that the opening poster is darned careful to discuss the practice, and only the practice, and not the propriety of the member who admitted in the other thread to that practice.

11. Poll: Is Melech correct?

Unacceptable. You're discussing a member, and all the more so if it has to do with something not on the open boards.
However, Is Opinion X expressed by Melech correct? I'd think that would be ok - you're discussing the opinion, not Melech. But again, the opening poster has to be very, very careful not to contribute to crossing the line of discussing the member.

12. Melech's avatars

Acceptable: You're discussing the avatars, not the member. However, again, we have to be very careful about discussing the avatars and not the member, or even the member's taste.

13. Melech, please empty your PM box

acceptable: you're addressing the member, not discussing the member
So too, "Yo, Melech, this one's for you".

14. Melech, I apologize.

acceptable: you're addressing a member, not discussing the member

15. I figured out why Melech's screen name is as it is

not acceptable: starting a thread to discuss a particular member.

Melech: I figured out why your screen name is what it is.

acceptable: addressing a member. with the usual caveats about real life and lashon hara and outing...
but very dangerous, since it opens the door to pretending to address a member even though your real intent is to discuss the member.

16. Members who do X

acceptable: you're not discussing a particular member



ETA:
I just want to emphasize again that all the other rules [lashon hara, insulting, information not from the open boards, a discussion that the member can't respond to...] apply. As well, not mentioning the member by name when it's clear as day to most of the membership who is being discussed is not an excuse.
I also think there's a difference between starting a thread about a member, where the thread is intended to discuss a member, and starting a thread about a group of members in the collective. I also think it's different to discuss a member within a thread.
I also think that when a member starts a thread that is not appropriate [eg. discussing a member], all the members who contribute to the discussion are just as guilty.

I think the membership has a right to privacy and that privacy includes not being the subject of threads discussing them. However, by participating on h.com, one implicitly accepts being addressed.



I did this list really quickly off the top of my head to invite discussion. I doubt many of the examples would hold up to scrutiny and I don't think even I agree with a number of the examples. Don't hold me [or others] to it. Again, the purpose is to invite discussion to help clarify the guidelines, not to propose setting down any guidelines.

FYI, I'd never use SDJ IRL.

FTR and FWIW, I don't use IRL IRL.

i didn't finish reading the OP, but my head is already spinning. and i want to post less and less here, for the fear of violating one rule or another.

(#8 should be singular "member", and #9 - plural "members")

((#1 and #7 about the engagement is just semantics - they see to mean absolutely the same thing))

That's not fair. If anything, I would think the other extreme, of having no rules, would make posting on h.com even more unpleasant. Obviously there needs to be a balance and obviously common sense should prevail. I am suggesting, however, a sensitivity to some of the issues. When a member has purposefully not discussed his or her occupation or gender, that member should feel safe he or she won't log on one day to find a whole thread speculating about it.
These "rules" aren't meant to be intimidating, but rather to level the playing field and to help make sure the membership feels safe.

All these rules are a reaction to a need.



Thank you.

Don't worry about it, Elana. Remember, Melech is not a mod and generally people get in trouble when someone else reports their post. I don't think I've ever read anything that you've written that even came close to being warn-able.

Are we to assume from this point onward that "Lauren" is a nom de plume for "my wife"? Or is that unfair speculation about members' private lives?

All very true.

Obviously what prompted this thread was recent confusion about why some threads are allowed to stand and some were recently closed or deleted.

i hear you. it's just here i am, trying to work and look at the threads from time to time, to breathe a little. and here i see this whole megillah, of some similar posts, some of them should be acceptable, others - not. now, next time i want ot post a birthday thread, i have to stop and think "will it violate someone's privacy? what if he/she hates being congratulated on his/her birthday? what if every birthday hurts because he/she is single, etc, etc"

yes, we have to be careful what we write if we know people IRL.

btw, i see nothing with "speculating" if someone is a woman or a man or a teacher or an accountant, UNLESS someone comes and says "she is my neighbors' kids' teacher - she works in BY of BP". but i realize it's me, and others might have a different sense of privacy.

No. I was considering linking specific examples from h.com of threads, and also mention certain threads that are no longer extant, but I opted not to take that route and instead to use my own name. That said, these are all fictional examples and no conclusions can be drawn from the examples.


It would be unfair speculation to start a thread: "Is Lauren a euphemism for Melech's wife?". That would be a thread discussing a member and would only invite either speculation or people volunteering what they know from real life. On the other hand, if in the middle of a thread a member asked, "Is Lauren's character based any way on melech's wife?", I don't think that would violate anything and I could then respond, "No, not at all, not in the least."

my warning level has always been (as far as i rememeber) 0, but that's not the point. even if nothing i wrote is warn-able, i posted in a few threads that were closed because of this "privacy issues". some of them i understand, others - not.

Then why did they put their birthdate into their profile information?

A thread devoted to speculating about the gender or occupation of a member when that member has obviously not only not volunteered that information, but has made a point of wanting that information obscured, I think violates that member's privacy.

And yes, stopping to think if a thread will violate a member's privacy before posting the thread, yes, I think that's a good thing to stop and think first.

I'm not so sure about this rule. If a member has been banned unfairly (in some members' perception) then a blackout of news/discussion about the member serves to further obliterate their memory and suppress dissension on the board.

they signed up 5 years ago and did it, then just never remembered it was there until i posted a thread?

but you get the point.

That's exactly why we need a discussion like this - because what's acceptable and what isn't has never been clarified. And we can't assume what I myself would be ok or not ok with is the same for others.


I think it's not a good thing in general to discuss a member who cannot respond. As opposed to discussing a post of that member. I can discuss his ideas, not him.


In my opinion, anything a member posts on h.com for everyone to see, regardless when it was, is fair game.

i hear you. the only "problem" is that a "member's privacy" is very subjective. what i view as normal and non-intrusive, might be the invasion of privacy to you. hence, my earlier sentiments about wanting to post less, so that i don't step on someone's toes.

Do you never discuss the dead?

And hence the need for a discussion like this. Maybe I will learn what others consider to be private, and I will try to be more sensitive to those sensitivities.

I understand what you're saying but I have no tolerance for idiocy. If your birthdate is in your profile, you have declared that public knowledge and I will not spend one second considering that maybe you don't want people to comment on it.

All the time I do. But that doesn't mean that I can whisper about Nechama Dina behind her back at the dinner table.

But if Sarah Draizel got into a big fight with Nechama Dina over that tuna fish hechsher business, and now they're no longer on speaking terms, it might be okay to mention, the next time you're learning with Sarah Draizel, that you miss seeing Nechama Dina around.

Right. But there's a possibility of reconciliation and therefore the discussion is potentially le-to'elet. If a member is banned for life, then that's that.

But I hear you. Maybe "I miss Melech" when Melech has been banned is ok, at least if we are saying it the le-to'elet [eg. the descision to ban him was wrong and ended up harming the h.com experience].
On the other hand, a thread: "Why I agree with the decision to ban Melech" may not be acceptable.

I hear your valid point.

By the way, with regard to your example, I assume you're aware that it's possibly lashon hara to praise someone to her enemy.

I don't get why everyone is so scared to not follow the rules. What's the worst that could happen if you don't? It's just an internet web board. Why not have some fun

Dina D'malchusa Nechama Dina...

Or maybe they taina that it is gezel to use the board in a manner inconsistent with the policies of the owner.....

What is different here? Because its a practice, and not a term? That makes singling out and potentionally embarrassing someone ok?



If melech is fine with said post, and demonstrates that by responding within a thread, whats the problem?


Avatars represent the person, so you ARE discussing the member. Said member may also be hurt if disparaging remarks are made, if they designed avatar (ex. nechama's paintings).


Posts like these almost always lead to direct discussion of members.

semantics




I find this whole thread ridiculous. Mods are human & should use discretion. A certain amount of whimsy and a casual air contribute to board dynamic. Obsessing over rules stifles posters and causes more board-wide damage than a few closed threads. Once its no longer fun & easy to post, no one will.


So its ok to violate board guidelines w/i a post, as long as no new thread is started?



If all one worries about is political correctness, it becomes no longer worthwhile to post. People need to have skin thicker than kleenex, so everyone else isnt forced onto eggshells.

Because it's more general. You're allowed to discuss what people do, but that doesn't make starting a thread about a person ok.


I'm not sure exactly. But there's a general inyan not to start threads discussing members, but we can discuss members within a thread. I think maybe the difference is one of focus, and when we focus an entire thread on a member, it has more potential to lead to problems. Maybe.



Possibly. I guess we have to be careful. But we can have different tastes. There's nothing wrong with having different tastes, but that doesn't mean we can insult somebody or make disparaging remarks about their taste.


Possibly you are correct.


You're probably right.




Thank you, Shuli, for taking the time to make your thoughtful and thought provoking responses in spite of your personal feelings about the utility of this thread.


I absolutely agree. But there was confusion recently about whether a particular thread was inappropriate or not. While obsessing isn't healthy, being sensitive to the sensitivities of others is.
As for whether the mods use discretion properly I suppose that's a subject for another thread. I'm happy to share my thoughts about the mods but I'm trying to focus in this thread concerning the rule about when we can and can't start threads about other members.



I don't believe so. But again, I'm willing to accept that there's a difference in focus between starting a thread with intent to discuss a member, and happening to discuss a member within a thread.



I absolutely agree. But we shouldn't assume what doesn't bother us necessarily doesn't bother others, I shouldn't assume that what doesn't bother me necessarily doesn't bother you. Neither extreme is good, of being too scared to post, or posting anything at all that comes to our mind.

Perhaps Im giving more credit than is due, but I think the general membership observes a certain decorum without constant reminder or clarification of board guidelines.

In general you are correct. That's why there are almost 1,000,000 posts with relatively few problems. However, the reality is that posts and threads do occasionally violate board guidelines so there is apparently still some confusion about what is and what isn't acceptable.

And again, this thread was meant to help clarify a specific recent confusion - it is a reaction to a problem, rather than pulling a theoretical problem out of thin air that never was and never will be.

I dont think thats due to confusion; rather I believe people are observing the spirit of the law, and not the letter. Occasional clashes arise when moderating goes by the letter, or mods feel there is a potential for trouble. The rare thread that truly needs closed is usually recognizable to all.

In general I agree. But not in all cases.


I respectfully disagree. If that were the case, then there would never have been a thread in which quite a few members spoke about a member, that which they knew from real life, and which was closed only about 12 hours later. Nor would there have been a poll speculating about the gender of a member in which many members participated before it was deleted which mods read. There are plenty of other examples as well, but I'll leave it for now and just say that I have a different take on it than you.

In any event, there is some sort of unwritten understanding that we're not supposed to start threads about other members. My opening post basically boils down to that although that's true, we can still address other members with a thread. I'm suggesting that simple clarification may help some members who were confused as to why one thread was deleted and another was allowed to remain.

I agree with the majority of what was written in melech's first post.

LTL disagrees.

mosheshmeal
.