Seeing as the community appears to prefer to build its consensus more irregularly I'll try this one by putting my thoughts out first and taking the heat rather than trying to formalize the order of discussion.

[Rule 0:] This is a forum for free thinking and for discussing issues which have captured your imagination. Please respect other views and opinions, and keep an open mind. Our goal is to create a fairer and more transparent world for a better future.

Rule 1: Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person.

Rule 2: Don't abuse the report function.

Rule 3: No excessive, unnecessary and/or bullying "meta" posts.

[Rules 4-10:] Disclaimer: Submissions/comments of exceptionally low quality, trolling, stalking, spam, and those submissions/comments determined to be intentionally misleading, calls to violence and/or abuse of other users here, may all be removed at moderator's discretion.

First point is that given Paleo's statement that I posted separately, it would appear that admin is in fact ready to mod up those we choose, but it would appear that we need to be at least a little formal about it first, so this discussion might help that eventual occurrence.

Next, it seems clear to me that not everyone sees these rules the same as I do, so it would be appropriate to flesh them out a bit more among ourselves as we are getting ready for more formality, if we are.

In particular, if you feel my description calls you out for your own behavior (it might), and if you think your behavior should continue to be allowed and should be regarded as free for anyone to engage in, you'll want to comment now. (It would be silly to go around raping in a community where the law is "no rape", to act as if rape should be normalized, and then not to participate when the community starts to talk about electing a sheriff to punish rapists.)

1. [Also 0.] Respect seems to have a simple objective test of no personal attack or namecalling. I've found it helpful to permit indirect concern (if there's a known rapist then speaking indirectly about rapists at least allows the level of respect to keep it at arm's length from attack and namecalling) and to be hard-line about direct statement ("you're a rapist", "you destroy community").

2. Straightforward, unless mods lie about reports, for which there is no beneficial reason. Reports must be credible and not just an attempt to punish another (or even to start a dialogue, which should be started through modmail instead).

3. This literally says any post whatsoever that is not about conspiracies directly but is about the forum itself (and for the most part we don't have established "conspiracies about the forum" so I wouldn't encourage the blurring of that line) can be deleted immediately if viewed as bullying or unnecessary; so any meta post should be extra respectful and objectively justifiable. (I see that while writing this I'm speaking about some things with two levels of indirection by comparing them to racism; I think that's passable for a meta.) Further, even if that's the case it must not be excessive meta, such as a couple times a day, because why in a non-emergency would people need to make several meta posts in a day?

4. Very low quality can be deleted freely; this would suggest to me, for instance, the meme with very little graphic improvement and very little title interest, as it's unlikely to provoke new conversation.

5. Trolling is vague, but I define it as disruption, behavior that doesn't fall in another category but is clearly uninterested in pursuing the community goal (rule 0) of fairness and transparency. Focusing on another user's past elsewhere on the forum, for instance, is not a matter for Conspiracies mods but for mods of the community where the behavior occurred; focusing on the past of this forum would only be submitted as a request for specific action from the mods, because complaining without an action plan is basically borderline disruptive.

6. Stalking refers to continuing to interact with a person after the person has clearly indicated a request not to interact in a first page.

7. Spam generally means unsolicited, and in the Content Policy it includes consistent promotion of outside websites or of agendas (I did discuss this with a contributor in another forum, he knows who he is, so I'm not saying something new). (When I arrived at Scored I found from core mods that it was okay for me to inconsistently promote the website that has the same name as my handle.) We might draw a line between theory and agenda as relating to facts versus propaganda.

8. Intentional misleading allows mods to judge insincerity via demonstrations of illogic. I usually try to state the illogic publicly before taking action to see if the person responds positively, as it may just be a lapse rather than an intent.

9. Calls to violence are easily handled.

10. Abuse of others, although already handled under disrespect (including attack and namecalling), also includes categories like gaslighting.

I say this because it's possible for a community to rally around a full statement of its goals for itself without spiraling into anarchy (even if there are nitpicks about details). If there were actually a trend to change some of these rules (as opposed to discuss their interpretation), that would be different and probably shouldn't be engaged until a new mod team is ramped up. But we should already all be here because of nominal agreement with them. And, if anyone is already not following the rules as common consent would interpret them, that person is singling himself out, via continuance, for separation from the community that has a different common interpretation. Obviously my voice doesn't create common consent, but any voice contributes to it.

So that's my thought for this forum for this day.