Rule #12 - Debate

Yes, we have a rule enforced now that if a judge does not give adequate time for someone to fill their spot one week (or votes, but doesn't leave comments), they will be replaced.

Judges are not supposed to vote if they don't have time to comment. That's what subs are for.

When was this rule put in place?

Jane,

Thank you for the explanation. I think what you and the mods are doing with regards to the judges situation is more then adequate. Shows that there is little chance for the past to repeat itself if a situation should arise where something is a little off.

Hellon it was within the last couple weeks, Thats when they told us their updates rules.

Yeah, it was about a month ago. However, some occasionally sneak through... With this new round of judges, I think it will be better enforced, since they have the rule since the beginning and don't have to get used to something new.

-Sibyllene

The more I think of the quote by A lonely soul
'Those who do not follow rules usually pay for it or are made celebraties" the more I feel it reflects PQ theology.
Wiil rogers once said something to the effect that the hurtfulness of a commment generally relates to the truthfulness." A remark generally hurts in proportion to its truth" Will Rogers
The lay definition of harassment is making someone feel uncomfortable or hurts feelings. We are blest with having a lawyer volenteer his time and I would like to see rule twelve amended rather that rewrite the numbering of the amended rules to the legal definition of harassment since it can be punishable by penalties

Wiktionary defines it as "persistent attacks and criticism causing worry and distress" and "deliberately pester or annoy."

This goes beyond making someone uncomfortable or hurting their feelings.

I think we should avoid defining terms that are easily searched, or we get right back into cluttering up the rules & making them hard to decipher.

With all due respect I easily searched the legal definition used by our government and I enterpreted it too mean persistent attacks and critism causing worry and distress without legitamate cause . If I were arrested by a citizens arrest it would cause me worry and distress. Rebuttals in debate many times cause worry and dustress because of differing opinions
do debate not have ligitimate cause?

'The legal definition of harassment
Harassment includes any physical or verbal conduct demonstrating hostility toward a person because of his or her age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or other "legally protected status." The maSexual harassment - characterized by unwanted sexual advances or sexually explicit words, pictures or gestures. It is also considered sexual harassment for a supervisor or manager to subject an employee to a positive or negative personnel action in exchange for accepting or refusing sexual advances. Sexual harassment at work can occur, as well, when a person is subjected to negative treatment on the basis of gender, including situations involving members of the same or opposite sex.
Race/color harassment - most often occurs as offensive comments, epithets, jokes, slurs or gestures, or through symbolic objects or drawings. Even when the victim and harasser are the same race, or the victim is not a minority, race harassment is unlawful.
Religious harassment - usually involves jokes, comments or other demeaning conduct based on a person's affiliation with a particular religion or observance of religious holidays or dress. Coercing an employee to participate or not participate in religious activities also constitutes religious harassment.
National origin harassment - derogatory words or conduct aimed at an individual's nationality, ancestry, foreign name, accent, appearance or culture.
Disability harassment - occurs when an individual is subject to comments, ridicule or other demeaning conduct because of a "perceived or actual disability."

Since larry shows little interest I suggest Sibs may not mind the mods using her clerification on rule#12 it does not seem to need any immediate attention because no one has been penalized on this site for ages.

The legitamate reason I have to worry about the history of this site is that history tends to repeat

But Michael, this isn't a government forum. We're just common people, not subject to Constitutional limits and not scrutinized by those determinations.

If a post personally attacks an individual and deliberately subjects them to humiliation, it's harassment.

We don't need to determine if it violates any aspect of the bill of rights or other laws of the US or any other government, because we're not a governmental organization.

Yes, of course we are common people in a common era that tends to blame drama on organizations or individuals that are for the most part misunderstood. Thank you for your patience with me today. I just want to publically apologize to a lonely soul for accusing him of taking my post out of context. In rebuttal to his brilliant post
"Just a passer by with his insignificant opinion, rules (laws) are made with a consensus to keep people civil."A lonly soul

The God father
'Any society will burden itself with rules perceived to be needed to spell out minute prohibitions. A wise society will occasionally step back & clean up the roster of restrictions to get rid of the dead-weight once the situation has passed."

I am sorry it seems the main boards always slow
to a crawl when members get a general final warning I must be doing something right since my account has survived many of my debating partners

To Hell-on Wheels Arguing on the internet is like the special olympics, it doesn't matter if you win or lose, you're still regarded

She will understand that I am only patronizing myself

"If a post personally attacks an individual and deliberately subjects them to humiliation, it's harassment. "

That would not confuse most of the potential posters

I what to to make it as clear as Will Rogers that I am not a member of any Government Orginization nor a member of an oganized poloitical party. I am a democrat

Someone says a couple of weeks another a month...either way, it's still new so how can a judge.. given this responsibility forget last week and...how come the mod who was receiving the votes did not notice there was no comment attached to a vote with a 10 score on it when the mods made the rule in the first place. That's at least two people who basically made the same mistake, in the same week.

The rule remained flexible in November since it was implemented in the last month of the judges' terms (I can look up the exact date for anyone who cares, but it's not my priority). This term, judges are aware of the rule from the get-go, so will be expected to follow it.

Dig it?

So we have rules then we have flexible rules....is this correct? I can understand if you made up a whole list of new rules and put a time frame on them so that everyone had time to adjust but one rule? If the rule was indeed flexible why the need for stand in judges?

No, it is not flexible - it WAS flexible for several weeks, and I explained why.
With the new batch of judges, the rules are firm.

We've tightened up on most of the "rules" we ask judges to follow, like when votes/comments should be in by, when the contest host should be notified by if they (judges) need a substitute, and what puts them at risk for being replaced/what consequences will follow if expectations we lay out for them are not met.
If you are curious, I can send you a copy of the message judges receive when given judge status. I don't see the harm in that... do any mods?

^ were those 'rules' the same when me, bri, noura, colm and rab were judges?

You were messaged them, I think by Sibs or me, near the end of your terms (2-4 weeks ago). Check your inbox.

Yes, we have a rule enforced now that if a judge does not give adequate time for someone to fill their spot one week (or votes, but doesn't leave comments), they will be replaced.

Judges are not supposed to vote if they don't have time to comment. That's what subs are for.

^^^^

No mention that it was flexible from your previous post?

^ were those 'rules' the same when me, bri, noura, colm and rab were judges?

Are you saying here that you didn't know about this rule LP? I'm sure you check your pm box out regularly?

I don't know what you're trying to find out, but if I answer again, I'll be repeating myself.
What are your concerns? Are you concerned that I'm lying?

I said it is enforced now, I didn't say it was enforced several weeks ago. If I did, my apologies. I think my last 2 posts have explained things more adequately.

Jane

Lol NO hellon :p

hahah.. of course the PnQ mod account sent me a lot of messages with lots of rules!!

but I meant, that are the rules still the SAME now, or are there new rules for the new judges!!

dont get me wrong..

The rules were revised several weeks ago, and the revised rules were sent to all judges at the time. The new judges have received a revised revised copy of ALL the rules combined and polished, along with pointers/tips, and answers to common questions.

This thread is full.