"Forum Rules
1. No profanity, abusive language, or personal slurs.
2. No personal attacks. Please post all questions, answers, opinions, positions, objections, arguments, and counter-arguments in a professional manner.
3. No Hijacking of forum threads – The definition of Hijacking a thread is:
a. Interrupting an ongoing conversation by asking irrelevant/repetitive questions not relating to the original topic,
b. Repetitive posting for the purpose of monopolizing the Forum, when essentially no new information is offered whether in a new or ongoing post.
Any poster determined to have violated a rule (or rules) shall be warned by the moderator. Subsequent violations shall be grounds for restricting the forum access of the offending user until such time that the Executive Board reviews the case and determines the appropriate action."
Commentary
These forum rules seem to me to be fairly standard for the type of online forum one finds on private websites, where they are intended to discourage flaming, porn, trolling, etc. When considering them for use on a union site, you have to think about how they might be abused. “Profanity” is clear enough (though not to George Carlin), “abusive language” less so, “personal slurs” seems very subjective. Who decides the line between robust criticism and slur? Likewise “personal attacks” and the admonition to post in a “professional manner.” “Interrupting an ongoing conversation” sounds bad, as does “repetitive posting.” But what about a member who asks a question and gets no answer? Are they wrong to ask the same question again? How to determine whether someone's purpose is to monopolize the forum?
I suspect that most union website posting guidelines are copied from private websites and forums where the site's owners can censor content and permit and ban members at their own discretion. Such rules may offer useful suggestions to encourage good behavior, but they are a poor template for posting rules because, in an official union forum members have rights to free speech, equal participation, and due process.
Unions are certainly free to adopt reasonable forum rules, but members' democratic rights must be respected, including the right to criticize their officials and the right to participate equally in union affairs. Forum rules should be clear and equitably applied and any procedure for banning a member from the forum must provide due process -- things like written charges, the right to confront and cross-examine accusers, adequate time to prepare a defense, and a full and fair hearing with a decision based on the evidence.
What would sound posting rules look like? Would they include basics like the right of participants to vote to overrule the decision of the moderator?