Draft of site rules

[COBOLdinosaur]

I have completed the draft of the site rules and set them on an HTML page as they will be presented to members at sign up time and from links on the site.

http://www.expertsrt.com/static/RULES.html

Please review and discuss them so that we can get a vote done in time to have them incorporated into the sign up when we go live.

[coral1]

Other than a couple of typos, it seems plain enough. Play nice or go away.
:D

General:
...Announcement or Sticky in the forum where you intend to post, you are best to read them to ....

it is best to read them, to (you might want to check with Dd on the comma)
or
you should read them first,

Specific Rules:
2.  .... Don't hijack someone else's topic but adding on....

by adding on

[nicholassolutions]

Yup, looks good to me nice job fleshing this out. Now for some nitpicking -- take it or leave it as you wish :wink:

General gramatical note: almost all of the semicolons should 'technically' be commas

 item 6:
....that you will take credit for; that will be considered[ unacceptable ethical behaviour....

In items 7 & 8, I suggest changing PM to private message (PM) for people who might not know what it is

Item 11: ... You may not post links to other helps sites....
change helps ---> help

item 12: by copying and pasting items from other websites, is unacceptable.
There should not be a comma

item 14: ....All activity on ERT is subject to review. if a com....
capitalize the i in if

item 15: ERT reserves the right to refuse access to any person that they deem to not meet minimum professional standards for conduct.

I would change to:
 ERT reserves the right to refuse access to any person who it finds lacking in the minimum professional standards of conduct.

[COBOLdinosaur]

That's why I said "draft"  :wink:

I will make the corrects, along with any others we find.  Notice I set it up on a page with a link.  I figured if I posted it in the topic, the revised copies and revised revisons would result in a thread that takes three days to load.

I already manged to add the link to the page footer and incorporate it into the registration without breaking anything so it is just a matter of getting the wording right and seeing if it gets a yes vote; r I have to make major changes to get agreement.  

In any case that leaves just the revised FAQ for the noob educational suite.

 :^)

[Huntress]

Well I'm glad to see that everyone else has already posted about the grammatical and punctuation errors so I don't have to.   :wink:

[coral1]

... would result in a thread that takes three days to load

Good thinking.  :thumbup:

everyone else has already posted about...

Seems I missed more than I caught. My proof reading is still sadly lacking.    :?

[sajuks]

There is a double standard because Mentors are special people.

i like this..i do  =D>

[COBOLdinosaur]

I have been working through this with Dd to clean up the semantics and grammar. I will put the cleaned up version tomorrow and then maybe we can look at getting into a poll by the end of the week.

After Dd and I finished with it, it became obvious that "special" needs to be defined.  I just have to find the right word to communicate why Mentors are special.

[nicholassolutions]

A thought on that: It might be worthwhile to approach it from a slighly different direction. Why is there a double standard? Because Mentors themselves are special as people? Aren't the Seekers special too? Is there something that intrinsically changes about a Seeker when he becomes a Mentor? The point is, it's the position, the office that is special.  By approaching it like that, you prevent people from interpreting it "Mentors can do whatever they want because they are cooler than you are" which is good for people on both sides of the fence, since Mentors will presumably be held to a high standard of behavior themselves. You call a judge 'Your Honor'  (at least in the States) not because all judges are special, but in order to show respect for their office and the justice system in general. As for exactly how I'd phrase that, I'll get back to you  :wink:

[COBOLdinosaur]

Matt,

It is not the position or office that is special.  It is the people who are special. Anyone can answer questions to run up a score.  If the position is what is special then it implies some quantifiable element that makes a Mentor.  It leaves us with what IE has.  Is a Googledroid with a cert the same as  Diablo,  Nick, or Saju?

The special part comes into play when you examine motivation.  Why are you here helping on this site?  What do you have to gain?  What makes me, you, or any of the other builders come to this site and do a bunch of work with no pay; no points; no certs, with the possibility that in the end we will fail.  All of us could be running up scores on other sites; but instead we put the time in here to build something different.

You have to look inside yourself to answer why you are here.  It is what is inside that makes Mentors special.  It is what is inside that we all have in common.  We may, at times try to slough it off as ego, or we learn by helping; and a lot of other things.  In the end it comes down to when we see something we can do to help; we can't walk away because it is part of our "special" nature to help; and for us the "fun" is in solving the problem,  and teaching someone else how to solve it; not scoring the points.

All that is what is difficult to define in a sentence.

[nicholassolutions]

Well, I don't disagree with any of that, but the thing that makes ERT special, among other things, is that we don't bestow the title of Mentor on just anyone like they do with Expert over at TOS, in the same way that not just any ambulance chaser with a law degree gets to be a judge. You can tell a judge to kiss your rear as soon as he steps outside the courthouse, but you can't do it in court unless you end up paying a fine or spending a while in a jail cell. The judge gets his position because he's special. He has authority because of his office, and the office is granted that authority because it's necessary for the judge to do his job.

My point is simply this: You don't want anyone interpreting the rules (even if it's true) as "Mentors can throw their weight around and act unprofessionally towards members of lower status because Mentors are more important." You want them to read "Mentors are in charge because they can't teach otherwise, and they have the authority to boot you if you step out of line, just like your teacher could send you to the principal in gradeschool"

As for articulating what you're talking about I would say something like "...because Mentors are exceptionally generous, dedicated, and talented individuals who are the lifeblood of ERT"...that's a lot more than one word...maybe I'll think of something better after my brain warms up :wink:

[COBOLdinosaur]

Historically, judges have not always been held in high esteem. There are places in the world where they are nothing but hack tools of a corrupt government.  

In those places where there is judicial integrity; it is because the "special" people who have been judges set a standard that made the office special.  It is the same with experts. Calling someone an expert does not make them one.  Giving a title to those who do not merit it, devalues the title.  One of the reasons I didn't want to use Expert here is precisely because it has been made an empty title by sites calling people experts who are not.

Our first group of Mentors are going to define the position, as a special position; but while that is happening Mentors will already be special; and it is their performance that will determine what value the position has.  If Mentors are held in high esteem, the job of those to follow will be easy; because members will respond with respect for the position.

So by defining the people who are Mentors as special, it justifies respect for a title which does not yet carry automatic respect.  Just like the PE prgram at EE, the position is respected in TAs where they have had quality experts in the position; but it is a joke where the right people were not found for the job.

There are sites where admins and moderators do not get much respect, because they had morons doing the job and the position got turned into something negative.  On thos sites it is very difficult to get goo people to moderate because the position does not automatically get respect.

[COBOLdinosaur]

Hmmmm....  I think I can summarize that.  The position cannot define the qualities of the people in it.  The position is defined by the cumulative qualities of the people who do it over time.

[Huntress]

Hmmmm....  I think I can summarize that.  The position cannot define the qualities of the people in it.  The position is defined by the cumulative qualities of the people who do it over time.

Hey!  I actually understood that!   :scratch:

[nicholassolutions]

Not to be a jackass (well, actually I take that back :wink:)....but how are we going to choose which people should be Mentors then?