Clarify rule 1.5

[Ghast]

Posted a completely justified devouch and saw this:

Perhaps clarify the rule? Not sure I don’t use this forum as often as I used to.

 

[Zerxal]

They either need to make guidelines similar to how reputation is. Or stop over-moderating. De-vouching someone is not and should never be considered trashing. The wording of the rule is flawed it needs rewrote and broken down in sub-rules. Its far far to vague. They need to publicly post what they consider trashing and slander. I mean shit false scam reports are "slander" and those never get deleted. Just food for thought.

It’s deliberately vague for a reason, it’s so they can enforce where they feel necessary and not when they feel they don’t need to. If they wanted it to be more specific they would have changed it a long time ago.

Not that I agree with this, but just pointing things out.

 

[Geek]

They either need to make guidelines similar to how reputation is. Or stop over-moderating. De-vouching someone is not and should never be considered trashing. The wording of the rule is flawed it needs rewrote and broken down in sub-rules. Its far far to vague. They need to publicly post what they consider trashing and slander. I mean shit false scam reports are "slander" and those never get deleted. Just food for thought.

While I don't agree fully with what you are saying, I also don't disagree slightly. I do feel that there could be a little bit more wording to the rule, however it is vague because trashing comes in multiple forms and ways. I'd be interested to see how you would reword the rule. Please do reply and let me know.

 

[Lotus]

1.5 Do not slander or otherwise trash another member, person, or thread.

When you are attacking a victim's reputation or brand.

1.6 Do not disrespect, harass, hate on, or troll another person or group.

When you are directly attacking the victim themselves.

De-vouching someone is not and should never be considered trashing.

It isn't. It is when there's no proof associated with it because it's hard for us to support baseless claims, or the basis of the claim is unfounded.

Ghast, your situation is different since you posted evidence. I'll get the moderator involved to PM you on why it was removed but the extra context you have provided now might change things up a bit.

 

[Mick]

We have added subrule 1.5.2 to clarify this:

1.5.2 Do not publicly criticize unless with accompanying proof in response to an existing thread dedicated to the content or within the reputation system.

I think that it should be plenty clear now. I'll move this to accepted, thanks for the suggestion