"Unwritten Rules" 09-12-07

Agency Discussion While we can֒t allow actual true discussion of agencies, we do feel that mentioning names of agencies in posts & signatures should be allowed. Even statements like; I used agency xx for all 4 of my adoptionsӔ is really not discussion. Obviously under our current rules, it IS considered discussion but wed like to allow more leeway with this. WeҒd like to allow for more freedom on this rule and are thinking that unless its truly a bash or a glowing review, or a link to the agency itself, basic mentioning and comments should be allowed. Yes҅I know it's the "grey area" that is going to be an issue, so bring up some examples so we can discuss. Cussing Edits We spend way too much time editing this stuff out. From this point on, if a word is auto censored out, there is no need to go back in and re-edit to provide a more family friendly word. Just leave the **** in place and that is the only edit needed. Still need to pm the user letting them know a word they used was auto censored and to remember to use family friendly language. If a word is BYPASSED such as saying ֓That D*AM brother of mine said this! that is different. But instead of coming up with another word, just asterisk out the word completely. I also donԒt see the need to edit out the cuss symbols because theres no actual word and itҒs the same as ****, imo. If theres an indication of the word such as ғthat F(*&$% lady, obviously that would be different. But just a ԓThat @)(&)$(%*)@$(*% lady! well, it could be ANY word and I just dont think itҒs necessary to edit. (Brandy may disagree hereso weŒll seeLOL!) Media/t.v./print interviews - No need to ask for approval on the threads people post for interviews, media announcements, editorial input etc. I donŒt want them spammed, and the topic has to be appropriate, but have no issue with a If adopting from China, Redbook is doing an interviewӔ type thread. Closed membership group links let֒s just allow them. The only reason to mod this stuff would be if they Spam it. We do not want to be Spam central! And obviously, if the group is an anti adoption group or inappropriate, that is still not going to be allowed. (Frua would still not be allowed) But in general, closed membership groups will be allowed. Moderating the Generalizations I think we need to allow more freedom for people to discuss their points and opinions. I do often see members posting a response of ֓I really think that statement is unfair because not all or even most adoptees are in denial when someone does make a generalization. We need to let people state their opinions though, even if it DOES generalize. Generalizing and personal attacks are two different things for the most part and sometimes I think we get a little heavy handed in this area. If an opinion is a generalization, then at some point in that convo, someone generally will call them on it. I donԒt think we should moderate these though. Certainly, if you, posting as yourself want to say I really disagree with thisӔ, that is perfectly fine. I do feel that as a moderator, part of the task of education does fall on us. Not to say 8 moderators should gang upӔ on a thread, but I do think we should feel more comfortable too in just saying, GoshӅI really didnt agree with this!Ҕ and speak as ourselves.