I hope you at least wear a snazzy uniform with lots of ribbons and things.

I'll look like something from Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

How about something about possible derailing? Like "try to avoid derailing comments"? http://derailingfordummies.com/ I'm not sure yet how to get some of those concepts in the link into a shorter statement that is clear about what might not be cool.

(At least on a quick read). The ones I skimmed look close to things I've said...

But shortening them would be a challenge. I suppose they could be linked to in whatever is generated as rules as sort of background explanation.

I really dislike when posts get hijacked and derailed with extraneous comments.

Like... for example... I didn't really THINK about it, but I derailed the conversation on your thread asking for this group. It wasn't really my INTENT to do that, but it wasn't fun or lighthearted. Both of us self deleted the derailment, but had it been left there, it would not have been helpful (or fun).

If the entire thread becomes about something fun, though, then herding people back on topic is probably fine. If you attempt to herd people back on topic and they refuse, then you might consider more serious action, but most people should respond pretty well to "let's get back to the subject at hand... as much fun as this is"

in fun and good faith, I think I reminder to get back on topic might be a good thing.

Sounds like what is being suggested is that conversation follow the guidelines of "rules for a fair fight" that is often taught to couples.

For example:
http://happylists.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/37-rules-to-fighting-fair/

Paraphrasing and translating for this forum:

2. Use “I” statements: Don't speak for the other person. "What you are really saying is...." Speak for your self and only "quote" the other person. You said, "It was hurtful language", but I'm saying "It is truthful language that hurts".

6. Attack the issue, not the person. Name-calling puts people in a position to respond angrily and defensively. This is usually used when a person feels he is losing. Name-calling breaks down communication and destroys trust in the relationship.

9. Deal with one issue at a time. No fair piling several complaints into one session. NO expanding the original post into a long laundry list of complaints

12 Go forth as equals. Don’t use power plays. Everyone's point of view is valid. Authority doesn't make yours more valid.

16. Identify and Define your issue or topic, and stick to it! Don’t change the subject or bring in unrelated items. If you have a different item you’d like discuss, save it for the next discussion.

18. Ask questions that will clarify, not judge. No loaded questions. Questions should be to clarify, not challenge. If you want to challenge a point, state your case.

But No. 12 would be problematic I think. It plays into the 'balance fallacy'. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy

It would probably be more descriptive to say, everyone has a point of view that is valid *for them*, but for the purposes of discussions in here, a point of view of a person with more privilege might be better informed by listening rather than telling when talking to a person with less privilege. Asserting one's point of view as equally valid when a person with less privilege is trying to talk in this space could be considered derailing. (Extreme example: "What do you mean I can't understand racism because I'm white. I'm Irish and Irish were slaves!11 {goes on for several hours about this not-so-burning-issue} )

It violates number 9. Can't bring in irish slavery.

Alternately, don't tell someone that they "can't understand" something. Instead, present the information that you perceive they don't have. "There may be aspects of racism beyond your experience that are important to the discussion here including....".

They haven't been told that they can't understand, and the person with less privilege has already tried to explain the information they perceive the other person doesn't have. The person with more privilege takes offense and starts making exaggerated claims. I speak from observation, it wasn't a random example.

may get us all blocked at some point or another.

I appreciate the rules themselves but, IMO, sometimes a "dirty" fight is needed to get the point across. I think setting boundaries for how dirty a fight can get is a good idea, though. I like to scrap it up every now and again myself, it's good for the blood but the example you used about Irish slavery, would point back to what I said initially, it would be a rule that could get any one of us blocked.

What I'm more concerned about is letting folks know what is expected behaviorally and what can get them blocked from the site. Personally, I don't want to do a lot of hand-holding but I want to be clear on what will get someone booted, so they know ahead of time.

For example:

• If an OP doesn't have anything to do with Intersectionality, your thread will be locked.
• If your replies don't pertain to Intersectionality (meaning, you're here to cause trouble) and a pattern emerges, you will be blocked for an amount of time determined by the hosts.
• If you deny the existence of Intersectionality, you will be blocked for an amount of time determined by the hosts.
• No name-calling, we aren't in preschool.
• Try and keep on-topic. There's nothing worse than someone going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Things like the above (just quick examples I thought of off the top of my head)

Snark is fine, a spirited argument is great. Bullying and bigotry and MEANNESS isn't.