When interacting with of via a web site, you'll usually find an AUP (Acceptable User Policy) which you're expected to agree to - it's probably just a click of a button, and most of you probably won't read the details. But it will include things like "no swear words", "no copyright breaches", "no incitement to break the law" And it's very likely to include "no pyramid selling", "post only in English" and "no advertising off topic".

I run forums, and I represent myself through other media which can be generally read too, and these AUP rules are good ones to get right from the start. Open Source Forum software comes with a boiler plate agreement / set of terms - we use Simple Machines for the railway forum. We've taken that boiler plate, added a bit about cookies (which is not to limit users, but rather to inform them), and we have also added the following:

"This agreement extends to personal communication with other members (via personal message, email, or in any other way) where such communication is not acceptable to the recipient." This extends the juristiction and standard rules from public posts (where users may not swear, personally attack each other, etc) to personal messages, to cater for the occasion that (a) upsets (b) and so (b) starts fighting back with (a). They can do it by email if they like, but not as club / forum member to club / forum member.

"You also agree to NEVER use another person's account for any reason, and not to register for a second account if you already have one, even if you are unable to access it for any reason." I don't like users hiding their online status, nor changing their user name - but having two accounts is going too far. People have tried in the past to circumvent a ban this way, and I've seen it use on other forums to do some very neat entrapment of another innocent user.

But ... consider something else ...

Activies which - while they're not against specific rules - generate an inordiante amount of work for the moderators / admins. Often done intentionally to be a bl**dy nuisance.

We've had a handful - no more - of these people over the years. People who waste a huge amount of time by questioning and appealing every decision, who ask questions to which they already know the answers, who ... simply set out to waste as much time (and make as much worry) for the moderators and administrators as they can. There are none of these at the moment, but they came to mind because I was asked to look at another forum's setup and comment, and because I found something that covered this topic on the BBC's policy for moderating comments on their web site. It's covered [here] under freedom of information too - people who look to delay things by repeatedly complaining or filing FOI requests.

A "vexatious interacter" is one who posts / acts in such as way as to increase the workload and stress on the web site operator, and the web site team supporting that operator. The site operation and support team (including owner, programmers, administrators and moderators) will declare that a member or other party is a vexatious interacter in exceptional circumstances, and the team's decision as to what's exceptional will be final. Any sanctions which the team feels appropriate to safeguard the site and its aims, or to reduce the support work overhead that such a vexatious interacter may generate, may be taken without the application of our standard rules, methods, courtesies or policies. Vexatious interacters who wish to make a formal approach to the web site owners may do so in a letter sent via the Royal Mail, postage prepaid, to the address at which the domain is registered, and will be answered if appropriate within four weeks of the receipt of the letter.
(written 2013-02-24, updated 2013-02-25)

 G903 - Well House Consultants - Running and moderating forums and social media sites
  [22] Falling out over the silliest things - (2004-08-21)
  [29] Silence is Golden - (2004-08-26)
  [115] Expiration dates or times on web pages - (2004-11-12)
  [130] Spelling and grammar - (2004-11-25)
  [204] The confidence to allow public comments - (2005-02-06)
  [231] Feedback as lifeblood - (2005-02-28)
  [248] Use me, but use me effectively - (2005-03-16)
  [424] How not to run a forum - (2005-08-24)
  [516] Open source questions? Anyone can ask. - (2005-12-03)
  [651] Please Register with Opentalk - but just once! - (2006-03-19)
  [806] Check your user is human. Have him retype a word in a graphic - (2006-07-17)
  [828] Freedom of speech and freedom to post - (2006-08-10)
  [841] Forum help - a push in the right direction - (2006-08-21)
  [919] Freedom for X is denial of privacy for Y - (2006-11-09)
  [923] Why shouldn't I spam? - (2006-11-13)
  [948] Running an on line campaign - (2006-11-27)
  [1088] Why use BBC code not HTML? - (2007-02-21)
  [1190] Save the Forum - A regular clean sweep - (2007-05-17)
  [1362] No Thank You - (2007-09-23)
  [1472] The Horse goes on and on - (2007-12-15)
  [1485] Copyright and theft of images, bandwidth and members. - (2007-12-26)
  [1523] Ive just received an email from myself. Should I be worried? - (2008-01-29)
  [1532] Comment spam blocked. Please comment via Forums - (2008-02-05)
  [1539] A forum is not always the best vehicle - (2008-02-14)
  [1563] Guidlines for posting on a forum - (2008-03-04)
  [1569] I dont care - goodbye - (2008-03-09)
  [1578] Please don't shout at me! - (2008-03-16)
  [1595] First Great Western Weekend - (2008-03-30)
  [1678] Software - changes and delays. But courses must run on time! - (2008-06-15)
  [1759] While the world sleeps ... - (2008-08-19)
  [1923] Making it all worthwhile - (2008-12-04)
  [1972] Pettifog and forum boards away from public view - (2009-01-03)
  [2103] Ask the Tutor - Open Source forum - (2009-03-25)
  [2116] Why do we delay new forum members through authorisation? - (2009-04-03)
  [2156] Stopping forum spam - control of the signup process - (2009-05-04)
  [2162] Admins thoughts on banning a member from a forum - (2009-05-09)
  [2177] Preventing forum spam - checks at sign up - (2009-05-12)
  [2254] Forum membership - a privilege not a right - (2009-06-22)
  [2386] Computing under the influence of alcohol - (2009-08-29)
  [2526] A reluctance to move from old shoes to new - (2009-12-05)
  [2527] Flying tonight - (2009-12-05)
  [2569] How to run a successful online poll / petition / survey / consultation - (2010-01-10)
  [2781] The 500 pound question to get you started - (2010-05-26)
  [2820] Netiquette for forum newcomers - (2010-06-20)
  [3479] Practical Extraction and Reporting - using Python and Extreme Programming - (2011-10-14)
  [3910] Identifying your real customers and keeping them well informed fast - (2012-11-02)
  [4025] Backups, Codebase, Strategy and more - dealing with forum incidents - (2013-03-03)
  [4065] Handling requests to a forum - the background process - (2013-04-17)
  [4234] Change to Libel and Defamation laws from 1st January 2014 - (2013-12-31)
  [4239] Facebook marketing - early experiences - (2014-01-19)
  [4283] Can a legitimate forum post become illegal a year later? - (2014-07-11)
  [4307] Identifying and clearing denial of service attacks on your Apache server - (2014-09-27)
  [4315] Welcoming genuine forum posters quickly - but turning away off topic advertisers - (2014-11-16)
  [4403] The unbalanced relationship between customer and provider - (2015-01-21)
  [4492] Almost so wrong, but perhaps it's right for some? - (2015-05-11)

Back to Red, yellow, green or pink dog? Yellow Dog Project

Previous and next or Horse's mouth home

Forward to Afternoon Teas and Breakfasts at Well House Manor

Spike solution, refactored and reusable, Python - Example
Melksham Community - Annual Report / MCAP
Coffee Shop in Melksham
Afternoon Teas and Breakfasts at Well House Manor
Acceptable User Policy / vexatious interacter
Red, yellow, green or pink dog? Yellow Dog Project
Upcoming courses and availabiity
Costa Coffee in Melksham - is it a good idea?
Web Frameworks - nested templates
A course is not just for a year - its for a career