FORUM RULES — Revised July 2023

[ivar]

These are the rules of this Camino forum and they will be used by moderators with the intention of making this forum a good and comfortable place to share and exchange anything related to the Camino de Santiago.

Point system: This forum has implemented a point system for those users that violate any of the rules below. Every member starts with 0 points, but for each infraction, the user is given x number of warning points. Each point given is automatically removed 1 month later.

Users that accumulate the following number of active/non-expired points will see the following:
1-4 points - No action
5-9 points - All posts need to be approved by a moderator
10-19 points - Banned for 1 month
20-29 points - Banned for 3 months
30 and more points (does not expire) - Banned.

If you would like to know your point status, please ask a moderator in a Private Message.

Posts should be related to the topic of the Camino de Santiago, and support the Forum as a place “where past pilgrims share and future pilgrims learn.”

1) Please do not be rude, sarcastic, or insulting. The "receiver" of a comment might think it is rude or insulting, while the author might disagree. The final judgment is made by the moderators (we will do the best we can). Please note that this also applies to Conversation messages (PMs). If a PM is reported by a member, the moderators can see that message, but not the whole Conversation, so please behave also in PMs.

2) No discussions on religion, bullfights, sports and politics. These topics often lead to unpleasant arguments, so let’s not go there. It is true that the Camino and religion are closely related, so some leeway will be given.

3) No arguments about who is a tourist and who is a “real" pilgrim. The forum is intended for all who are interested in the Camino. Please do not challenge the sincerity, intentions, or authenticity of another person’s Camino.

4) Obscene language and subjects are prohibited. The occasional slip will be tolerated, but please do not let it become a habit.

5) No trolling. Trolling consists of provoking large volumes of responses by posting absurdities, deliberately offensive insults, etc. Note that new members with <5 posts are subject to additional controls to reduce trolling and spam.

6) Personal comments that are not of general interest should be done by using a Private Message/Conversation. If it's a private comment, then it's a private message.

7) If you do not agree with a moderator decision, please contact the moderator or @ivar in a Private Conversation. All disagreements should be handled in Private Conversations and not in public.

8) Each person is only allowed to have one account in the forum.

9) If you are walking for charity and ask for money, this should be done in the 'Walking for a good cause' section of the Camino Resource section. All posts asking for money in the forum will be deleted.

10) No commercial avatars and no commercial posts in the forum. As the Camino becomes more and more popular, there are more products and services related to the Camino. If you have one, you may post it in our Camino Resources section. @ivar shall determine if an avatar violates this rule.
Exception 1: Feel free to post your Camino related book here in the Book section. One thread per book, no bumping (replying to your own post to get more attention).
Exception 2: Lodging facilities and Camino app developers can post one post describing their service, and may answer direct questions. However, there should be no unnecessary "bumping" (replying to your own post to get more attention).
All other commercial posts will be removed.

11) Signatures should be a maximum of 3 lines "tall" (350 characters), without emojis or images (without embellishments).They may include a simple link to your blog, social media account or commercial website.

12) For photos uploaded to the forum (including the Photo section) the following rules apply:

• Photos uploaded to the forum are the property of the person who took the photo.
• Please only upload photos that are your own.
• To use these photos in any other way, please contact the person who took the photo for permission.
• If a photo contains images of people, it must be one that was taken with the knowledge and consent of those people (consent does not need to be written, it can be verbal or implied). If a photo includes children, the photo must have the explicit permission of the parent or guardian.
• Photos should not be posted for the purpose of identifying or finding the person.

13) We do not allow posts that serve mainly to increase traffic to external social media accounts, commercial sites, or private events, and that provide only minimal ongoing contribution to the forum value.

@ivar will have the final say in any dispute.

 

[C clearly]

Ivar has edited the post above, and announced it on a banner at the very top of your screen. However, I see that the text box is not very prominent on some computer platforms (i.e. mine), so I'm bumping it with this post. Now it should appear in the New Posts feed.

The key changes are:

• Introductory sentence added before the rules
• Rule 1 uses the word "insulting" instead of "personal attack".
• Rule 3 has been replaced by the new rule on arguments about tourists vs pilgrims. (The former Rule 3 is rolled into #10.)
• Rules 11 and 12 have some minor clarification in wording about signatures and photos.

 

[WGroleau]

"If you would like to know your point status, please ask a moderator in a Private Message."
If the forum software allows, a user
- should be able to see but not change their points in some part of their profile but not anyone else (except moderators/admin)
- when a point is awarded, should get a private message for which rule (or rules) it comes from.
This would make it easier for people to change when their “sins” are due to carelessness rather than actual evil.

 

[C clearly]

If the forum software allows, a user
- should be able to see but not change their points in some part of their profile but not anyone else (except moderators/admin)
- when a point is awarded, should get a private message for which rule (or rules) it comes from.
This would make it easier for people to change when their “sins” are due to carelessness rather than actual evil.

This is already the way it works. I think you can see your own points in your profile; if you can't, you probably don't have any! When points are awarded, the member will get an alert with a brief reason and a statement that points have been given.

People might be interested to know that points are not often given. The vast majority of our deletions and edits are done without points. You usually just get an alert that something has been deleted or edited, with a reason.

 

[henrythedog]

"If you would like to know your point status, please ask a moderator in a Private Message."
If the forum software allows, a user
- should be able to see but not change their points in some part of their profile but not anyone else (except moderators/admin)
- when a point is awarded, should get a private message for which rule (or rules) it comes from.
This would make it easier for people to change when their “sins” are due to carelessness rather than actual evil.

It’s harder to get points than you may think. Even I would have given myself a stern talking-to on many occasions; but the patience of the moderators exceeds expectations.

 

[David Tallan]

Ivar has edited the post above, and announced it on a banner at the very top of your screen. However, I see that the text box is not very prominent on some computer platforms (i.e. mine), so I'm bumping it with this post. Now it should appear in the New Posts feed.

The key changes are:

• Introductory sentence added before the rules
• Rule 1 uses the word "insulting" instead of "personal attack".
• Rule 3 has been replaced by the new rule on arguments about tourists vs pilgrims. (The former Rule 3 is rolled into #10.)
• Rules 11 and 12 have some minor clarification in wording about signatures and photos.

Thanks for listing the key changes. Very helpful!

 

[Flog]

May I comment?
I like to speak my mind and I do tend to shoot from the hip at times. I know this is not always a good thing. I was reminded quite recently by a moderator after one of my honest but blunt offerings, what a difficult and largely thankless job it is to moderate a forum and to steer a straight course through so many diverse opinions across many cultures, lest anyone offend anyone. I appreciate that and I get it, that in your collective wisdom this is deemed to be a necessary step.

But infraction points are a step too far for me. I don't wish to be further moulded into compliance as I see it. I'm sorry, but I feel the increasingly conservative bias of Ivar's forum has become too stifling. Of course, I'm speaking just for myself and this is just my own opinion.

But I'm thankful. This forum has and will continue to be a wonderful resource for all of us, and I wilk continue to lurk and pm, hypocrite that I am.. but this will be my last post.
Thank you all for sharing.

 

[BombayBill]

I often wonder what happens in the background as the moderators try to keep the forum a civil place to glean information from one another. How often do posts have to be deleted or edited? 5 times a week? More? What are the major issues in editing? Personal attacks or debatable issues (pilgrim vs tourist) or other issues?

I ask because the forum is an important resource for me. I want to do my part in supporting it and would like to know how I can do so. Is it better to stay clear of acrimonious debates or try to inject a little kind humour into them?

Outside of the Rules what can I do in my own posts to support the burden of the moderators?

Would an automated email to new members help in moving some issues off forum? An email that would point people at outside sources to inform themselves? Outside links that would clarify what a Pilgrim is? An email that would contain links to Gronze, the Pilgrim Office etc?

 

[peregrina2000]

But infraction points are a step too far for me. I don't wish to be further moulded into compliance as I see it. I'm sorry, but I feel the increasingly conservative bias of Ivar's forum has become too stifling.

I see these as two different concerns — concerns about the point system, and concern about what you describe as an increasingly conservative bias. I’ll just give my own two cents on both.

The point system has been here ever since I remember. Its purpose is twofold — to allow moderators to see the members whom others have pointed out as troublesome; and in more extreme cases to trigger the computer system to “moderate” a member, which means all posts must be approved by moderators before going on the forum (usually for a month). In more extreme cases, a big accumulation of points may result in deleting membership privileges for a period of time. It is a way to put members on notice that if they don’t want to comply with what I think are very fair even-handed rules of conduct, they should take their comments elsewhere. I don’t see this as molding anyone into compliance, because the members who don’t like the rules can go elsewhere.

I don’t really get what you mean by the increasingly conservative bias. The no-politics rule has been applied evenhandedly, as far as I can tell, but maybe you are referring to something else.

Is it better to stay clear of acrimonious debates or try to inject a little kind humour into them?

We appreciate attempts to calm down the acrimony, but we also appreciate receiving reports from members when you think that things are headed in the wrong direction. You have probably noticed that we try to calm things down with our own comments, but sometimes we decide that deletion is the only option. Which leads to another of your questions…..

How often do posts have to be deleted or edited?

We don’t keep statistics, but I would say your 5 a week ballpark sounds about right. It does seem to go in waves, though. We used to feel fairly confident that in high walking season (May-September) things would calm down, but recently that has not always been the case. Politics has always been a major source of deletion, but recently there has been a lot of sniping and rudeness. Civility is taking a hit in all parts of society, but we really want to keep things pleasant on the forum. The hardest posts for me personally are the sarcastic ones - frequently, they are very clever and humorous, but when we get to the point that the humor comes at the expense of someone else’s innocent question, we will delete.

Thanks for these comments and questions. We mods are a rag tag band of camino addicts. We don’t always get it right, but we try hard!

 

[Marc S.]

The hardest posts for me personally are the sarcastic ones - frequently, they are very clever and humorous, but when we get to the point that the humor comes at the expense of someone else’s innocent question, we will delete.

Thank you for clarification. But I am bit confused, as the rule asks members not to make sarcastic comments, while you seem to suggest that sarcasm is allowed, as long as it is not a personal attack / personal insult ? Or as long as it does not lead to dilution of a thread ? (but then again, this can also happen because of other reasons) But maybe I am misunderstanding.

Fwiiw. It seems to me that you can achieve what you want to achieve with rule 1, without mentioning the word sarcastic.It seems to me that sarcasm can be mockery about someone or something - not sure what is necessarily wrong with the latter.

1) Please do not be rude, sarcastic, or insulting. The "receiver" of a comment might think it is rude or insulting, while the author might disagree. The final judgment is made by the moderators (we will do the best we can).

I notice that it is (understandably) up to the judgment of the moderator whether a post is rude or insulting, but 'sarcastic' is omitted in the second sentence - and wonder if this is deliberate (for some reason unknown to me). I assume though it is also up to the moderators' judgment whether a post is sarcastic ? Because whether a post is sarcastic or ironic (or rude or direct) is an interpretation.

The old rule was clear to me, as I am not on this forum to make personal attacks - and my posts have never been deleted for this reason. I assume that the new phrase 'insulting' is meant to comprise of (1) personal attacks and personal insults (2) referring to negative stereotypes (based on race, nationality, gender etc). Maybe I am misunderstanding, but I am not sure which other things are possibly considered as insulting.

 

[peregrina2000]

So, again just speaking for myself. But the first thing to point out is that the language is intended to guide us and you — you in deciding whether something is inappropriate, and us in deciding whether we should do anything about a post, particularly if it has been reported. That’s a lot of discretion on both ends. We mods don’t always agree, forum members don’t always agree, but it’s a judgment call and we do our best.

You’re right that the rules say no sarcasm - but the comments explain, I think, that the problem is the way the comment is received. Sarcasm with a attached is likely to be received differently. We are not planning to become the humor police on the forum, we’re just asking you all to think about how the recipient of the remark might feel. A brand new member, for instance, making his or her first post, might be upset in ways that longtime members who know the commenters and their fame for witty sarcasm would not be. It’s all a judgment call. And by the way, as I see it, there is no shame in having your comment deleted. We can always talk about it via PM and try to explain. This should help make things work more smoothly.

I ithink that for most people on the forum, these rules just encapsulate the way you behave in your real world life, with the caveat that since we are not all native speakers of English, and since the written word may be more easily misunderstood than the spoken word with all its personal context, we have to be sensitive to those limitations of a written forum as well.

 

[C clearly]

I see that @peregrina2000 has posted while I've been slowly composing. I especially agree with the statement that people should not be unduly insulted if their post was edited or deleted. Think of the referee analogy I introduce below. Sometimes good people overstep the mark.

infraction points are a step too far for me.

The point system as set out officially has been in place for many years. However, those are just the numerical settings that trigger software changes. In practice these are the degrees of moderation:

• None
• Warned - You have violated a rule and been given points; a brief reason is stated.
• On moderation - All your posts will need pre-approval before they are published, for a month.
• Banned - For whatever time period is appropriate. Could be a month, could be forever.

I do not see how the forum could be managed without such a system. It is applied at the discretion of the moderators, who almost always discuss these cases before banning anyone.

We have outlined some "Rules" to address some typical problem situations.

I notice that it is (understandably) up to the judgment of the moderator whether a post is rude or insulting, but 'sarcastic' is omitted in the second sentence - and wonder if this is deliberate (for some reason unknown to me). I assume though it is also up to the moderators' judgment whether a post is sarcastic ? Because whether a post is is sarcastic or ironic (or rude or direct) is an interpretation.

The rules are written to give members some basic principles of behaviour, and to help the moderators agree on an approach to moderation. They are written for people from different countries and languages, education, attitude, etc. The rules are applied non-prescriptively and with broad judgement by the moderators.

There is no way that we can draw up rules that will answer all of the doubts and uncertainties that members might have. I suppose we could try, by taking on an effort of many many hours and consultations within and outside our group. We could debate the meaning of the words sarcastic, insulting, judgement, rude, etc. We could study the million messages already posted and observe trends that lead to different types of outcome. We could develop a dictionary of all the words in our rules. But to what point?

The bottom line is always that we decide on a level of civility that seems "appropriate" and we act accordingly. This is not "moulding" anyone. It is simply saying that if you want to participate, you must follow the rules and accept the referees' calls. Sometimes the referees call it wrong, sometimes there is uncertainty, but mostly they get it somewhere close to being "right". The referees/moderators try to be accommodating of personalities and mental health, they try to recognize different cultural interpretations, they try to strike a balance between over- and under-moderation.

Or am I misunderstanding, and are there other things that can be considered insulting ?

There are infinite ways to be insulting. Our rules try to give examples but the list is not exhaustive.

Would an automated email to new members help in moving some issues off forum? An email that would point people at outside sources to inform themselves? Outside links that would clarify what a Pilgrim is? An email that would contain links to Gronze, the Pilgrim Office etc?

Possibly, but honestly I don't think that these would help significantly. Most people don't read instructions carefully. Furthermore, it would be a very big task to create and maintain this type of system. (I have been involved in such efforts before, in my working life.)

Preparing a more standardized body of information and guidance would not really be in the spirit of the forum, which is a place where information, guidance and opinions are dynamic and crowd sourced - everyone gets to present it, as long as they follow the rules and accept some refereeing. That is what makes the forum so interesting! The forum does have enough structure to enable searching and browsing topics in a way that other platforms like Facebook don't.

How often do posts have to be deleted or edited? 5 times a week? More? What are the major issues in editing? Personal attacks or debatable issues (pilgrim vs tourist) or other issues?

I would say that posts are deleted almost daily - maybe on 5 threads per week. However, when 1 post is deleted, all the follow-up posts must also be deleted to remove arguments or off-topic discussions, so the number of deleted posts goes up. Editing of text is done sparingly, though, and we try to be quite specific with our edits, so that we do not change meaning. Often we delete and suggest that the author re-post without the offending words. Points are assigned much much less often than these deletions.

Other daily activities of moderators include updating the monthly "Starting" threads, moving threads to appropriate locations, adding tags and prefixes, tidying up formatting issues on posts, deleting posts with quotes but no response, watching the threads for disputes that have gone too far, discussing those threads and handling reports from members. Finally, we still try to participate in the discussions that are the reason we are all here.

Maybe my post (this long one) deserves be deleted! In fact, it will, because Ivar intended this discussion to be an opportunity for some open comments, but the thread will be cleared and closed before long.

 

[Marc S.]

Maybe my post (this long one) deserves be deleted!

No, not all.

In fact, it will, because Ivar intended this discussion to be an opportunity for some open comments

That is what I tried to do (and some others as well) : give some open comments.

If Ivar does not want any questions to be asked, and does not want people to check if they understand everything correctly, he should say so at the beginning of the thread.

If this helps, my comments were not meant at all to criticize the moderators - I somehow have the feeling they came across that way.

 

[C clearly]

If Ivar does not want any questions to be asked, and does not want people to check if they understand everything correctly, he should say so at the beginning of the thread.

Ivar indicated an openness to some feedback, but it is likely not productive to carry on this discussion indefinitely!

my comments were not meant at all to criticize the moderators - I somehow have the feeling they came across that way.

No, I think your comments were respectful. I hope that our responses have provided some insight.

 

[peregrina2000]

If Ivar does not want any questions to be asked, and does not want people to check if they understand everything correctly, he should say so at the beginning of the thread.

Maybe we didn’t say this clearly, sorry. The reason why the thread will be closed and all these comments deleted is because we want to have a ”clean copy” of the rules that people can go to without getting bogged down in all of these weeds. Ivar very much did want to hear what people have to say. I think some of us are surprised that there are not more comments!

 

[David Tallan]

May I comment?
I like to speak my mind and I do tend to shoot from the hip at times. I know this is not always a good thing. I was reminded quite recently by a moderator after one of my honest but blunt offerings, what a difficult and largely thankless job it is to moderate a forum and to steer a straight course through so many diverse opinions across many cultures, lest anyone offend anyone. I appreciate that and I get it, that in your collective wisdom this is deemed to be a necessary step.

But infraction points are a step too far for me. I don't wish to be further moulded into compliance as I see it. I'm sorry, but I feel the increasingly conservative bias of Ivar's forum has become too stifling. Of course, I'm speaking just for myself and this is just my own opinion.

But I'm thankful. This forum has and will continue to be a wonderful resource for all of us, and I wilk continue to lurk and pm, hypocrite that I am.. but this will be my last post.
Thank you all for sharing.

You will notice that infraction points are not one of the changes. I'm not sure how long they have been there, but I believe it is at least several years now.

 

[William Garza]

I just admire that the mods are multi culture ahhh...cognisant?

Savy to the mores of the many human paths walked by so many...
We may know a few,being more...or less traveled..and traveling
Which challenges perceptions and habits grown accustomed through familiarity.

Eg.Carnival in Italy used to freak me out as I have a thing about clowns..until with enough experience find the masks beautiful.

The mods hearding cats in droves..of inquisitive and lively members Is a wonder of perspicacity.!

 

[Corned Beef]

I think some of us are surprised that there are not more comments!

There was a thread today that has been heavily edited as the discussion appeared to question the bona fides of the another poster. Was pleased to see the unfortunate slight on the poster was removed very quickly.

As regards the process if this is seen (and of course is a matter of opinion), is it better to use the Report button or leave it to the Mods/rules.

 

[ivar]

That you all for good comments... my intention was to leave this thread open for comments a few days and then close the tread and remove the replies... so that we have a clean "rules thread". Will do so later today. As for future feedback on rules, I would contact me or any of the mods in a Private message.

Also, just want to thank the forum moderators for all their work.

 

[SabsP]

Maybe it is already posted but I still do not know how the report function here works?
Is it the first moderator online who sees it and deals with it? Does it then stay in a type of " database " where other mods and Ivar can see how that specific post is dealt with?

I ask this because I do not always agree with a general post a moderator makes and want to report that specific post. Until now I handled this by making a pm to the administrator aka Ivar.

 

[dick bird]

There was a thread today that has been heavily edited as the discussion appeared to question the bona fides of the another poster. Was pleased to see the unfortunate slight on the poster was removed very quickly.

As regards the process if this is seen (and of course is a matter of opinion), is it better to use the Report button or leave it to the Mods/rules.

Feel free to use the ´Report´ button. It may come as a surprise to some, but we are not omniscient. It does no harm to report something you are uneasy with. Sometimes we decide it is OK, quite often it is useful to us to be alerted to a post that needs attention.

 

[ivar]

Maybe it is already posted but I still do not know how the report function here works?
Is it the first moderator online who sees it and deals with it? Does it then stay in a type of " database " where other mods and Ivar can see how that specific post is dealt with?

I ask this because I do not always agree with a general post a moderator makes and want to report that specific post. Until now I handled this by making a pm to the admininstrator aka Ivar.

A "report" is available and visible to all moderators... once the report has been dealt with, it is "closed". If it is a clear case the first moderator that sees is can deal with it and then close it. If it is not so clear what to do, the moderators will have a short discussion on the report and then come to a decision together. Then it is closed.

Right now I see we have 4 open reports that we are talking through... trying to find a solution. Since we are in different time zones, things might take some time to get sorted.

 

[dick bird]

Maybe it is already posted but I still do not know how the report function here works?
Is it the first moderator online who sees it and deals with it? Does it then stay in a type of " database " where other mods and Ivar can see how that specific post is dealt with?

I ask this because I do not always agree with a general post a moderator makes and want to report that specific post. Until now I handled this by making a pm to the admininstrator aka Ivar.

Every report is seen by all the moderators. What happens then depends on a number of factors. The first mod to see the reported post may decide to delete it straightaway. This happens when it is a clear and serious breach of the rules. Sometimes we discuss it first and then decide to delete it, sometimes we decide to leave it. Sometimes we respond in the thread, sometimes we respond with a PM to the original poster. Each case is decided individually. If you are unhappy with a post made by a moderator, you have three choices: report it; PM the moderator; PM Ivar.

I see Ivar has just posted the same information, but as I wrote this already, I´ll post it anyway. All I will add is that every report is examined very carefully and with respect and in confidence.

 

[chinacat]

Could the points system be explained more comprehensively, please?

Ivar‘s opening post seems to indicate that single points are used, whereas @C clearly mentions the ‘awarding’ of ‘points’ (in the plural):

Warned - You have violated a rule and been given points; a brief reason is stated.

Many thanks!

 

[Camino Chrissy]

I hope that our responses have provided some insight.

This has been a very informative thread; both by the questions asked and the detailed answers by contributing moderators; I have appreciated those candid replies as it is nice to have more understanding and a "window" at behind the scenes operations.
Thank you for keeping the thread open for now.

 

[C clearly]

If you are unhappy with a post made by a moderator, you have three choices: report it; PM the moderator

The words in the rules do say "contact the moderator." However, you usually won't know which moderator to contact. Perhaps the rules should say "contact any one of the moderators, or Report a post..." Reporting will get to all of the moderators.

Could the points system be explained more comprehensively, please?

As I tried to explain in post #12, the "points system" is actually used on the forum in a very simple way. All you need to know is that there are four levels of moderation - none, warning with point(s), posts moderated, and banned.

The software design seems to allow for a more automated management of points accumulating to various levels with automatic action. Some larger forums probably need or want this type of system.

 

[peregrina2000]

Could the points system be explained more comprehensively, please?

Just to addd a bit to what @C clearly said. Just giving a point or two is like a heads up to the member - you’ve gone too far, try to dial it back.

If that doesn’t work, and the same stuff continues, we will then add more points so that the computer system will put you on “moderation.” That means that one of the mods has to approve your post before it will show up on the forum.

More extreme than that is the possibility of being shut off from the forum (other than being able to view it as a non-member as people always can) so that you cannot post, cannot have conversations, etc. This tends to last for a month. Most extreme would be a permanent ban.

Just want to highlight that we try to tread lightly - I can’t remember a case when we read a post from a member with no history and said — get that person on moderation! For most people, giving a point or two is all that’s needed to give the member a good sense of what the limits are. We try to explain the basis for the points, but members should always contact a moderator if they are not sure about it.

 

[ivar]

That you all for good comments... my intention was to leave this thread open for comments a few days and then close the tread and remove the replies... so that we have a clean "rules thread". Will do so later today. As for future feedback on rules, I would contact me or any of the mods in a Private message.

Also, just want to thank the forum moderators for all their work.

So it looks like this thread is useful... so I will leave it open for a bit longer.

 

[chinacat]

Thanks for the replies but just to clarify:

Presumably the first level, ’none’, covers simple deletions. That is, deletions where no points have been ‘awarded’.

Is this inference correct?
Thank you

 

[trecile]

Thanks for the replies but just to clarify:

Presumably the first level, ’none’, covers simple deletions. That is, deletions where no points have been ‘awarded’.

Is this inference correct?
Thank you

That is correct.