Create Post

Rules #2.0
?/? files 1 MB max per attachment
Add files...
Attachments not manually inserted in your post will be appended to the end

Thread Summary

Posted by Anastasia
Jun 12, 2010 21:04:14 GMT -5
Rules #1.5 and 2.0 are being voted on at the same time. Here's a link to Rules #1.5: oywrpg4.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=5spam&action=display&thread=3698


If you prefer 1.5 over 2.0 or vice versa, please let us know.

1. Rules of conduct
There's a difference between playful jokes and repetitive harassment and it's no secret that we have a history of the latter. While we'd like to let everyone express themselves as they like in the chat room, certain modes of expression cause way more harm than should be tolerated. These include but are not limited to:
• Complaints of games in progress without first addressing your concerns with the webmaster.
• Trolling of the webmaster/game.
• Repetitive harassment directed at anyone in the chat.

2. Ensuring Equality
Treat others as you would like to be treated. But most importantly, if someone expresses to you in any way that you are harassing them (even if this is not your intent) and they ask you to stop, for goodness sakes just take their word for it and stop.

3. Avenues of Addressing Problems with Moderators
If someone is harassing you and they have not ceded the harassment after you've politely asked them to stop a number of times, seek out the aid of a moderator. The moderator may choose to act either as a mediator (it is up to their discretion), or just simply address the aggressor privately and notify them that if their behaviour doesn't change, they will be reprimanded.


4. Methods of Reprimanding for Infractions
Chat usage is a privilege. If your questionable conduct has been brought to the attention of a chat moderator and they agree that you are stepping over the line, you will at first be given a warning. If the warning is not heeded you will be kicked and banned for 30 minutes. If even this doesn't work, more drastic measures will be taken.


5. Responsibility of Moderators
Being a moderator can be fun and all, but you do seriously have a job to do and are expected not to abuse your mod powers. You are also subject to the same Rules of Conduct and penalties, upon breaking the Rules of Conduct, as anyone else.

    • For personal harassment: Do not ban anyone unless a victim has come forward and you've given the aggressor one warning.
    • In the case a moderator is the victim they are expected to follow Rule #3 (they can issue the ban themselves or have another moderator do it).
    • For game trolling: Left to the moderators discretion. If the moderator isn't sure, they're to get the opinion of the webmaster. In either case, a warning will be issued and will be followed by a ban if the aggressor doesn't stop.
    • Repetitive abuse of chat room privileges and/or repetitive abuse of moderation powers will result in the moderator losing their moderation powers.


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: Some people have asked for a shorter rule set, and insist that "common sense" should just be used instead of all these "strict rules" and guidelines. I'd like to argue that proper conduct and usage needs to be outlined to decrease problems and ambiguity. For instance a lot of the mods may be new, and giving them a considerable amount of power and not telling them how to use it won't fare well. The new mods will probably do a good job, but chances are they'll either abuse their power (we've tried to choose level-minded people so this wouldn't happen) or do nothing. The latter would mean we'd be right where we started with Ketara (and others) saying "the mods don't act when action needs to be taken."

    Overall though, I'm getting conflicting opinions. Dan, who has been the most vocal about this (thank you, Dan) is saying the rules are too vague. While others, who are less vocal but more numerous, are saying the rules are too long and strict. To Dan I say: We can't have 10 pages worth of exactly how chatters and moderators should act. These rules are supposed to be a guideline (to be used with common sense) for what people should expect and what should be expected of them. However, if you want me to reword something, please go right ahead and give me a suggestion as to how. To everyone else: See above paragraph. Then see this thread: oywrpg4.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=5spam&action=display&thread=3697
Posted by Ketara
Jun 12, 2010 21:18:36 GMT -5
This set is better, but it sets out guidelines that are too strict, and doesn't give moderators enough leeway.

There's still nothing differentiating between joking that is made in an innocent way, and intentionally attacking somebody. Again, I don't want Chris to be banned for joking about Aqua Jew bias, but I do want Draco banned when he goes on a tirade about how I am Stalin or someshit. This system would still ban both of them, and considering that innocent joking happens 10x as much as hurtful comments, that is a turn for the worse.

Setting out definite 30 minute ban times and etc is an avenue to give rulebreakers a decision as to whether or not 30 minutes is worth the comment. Ban times need to be changed in response to situation as well as in response to the person doing it. Taking an example from our forum bans, when I ban say, Feyd, I only ban him for 1 day, because I'm pretty sure the offense is probably an accident. When I ban say, Berrik, I may ban him for a full week for the exact same offense, because I am sure he has premeditated it and said "if he only bans me for 1 day like he did to Feyd it is worth it."
Posted by Anastasia
Jun 12, 2010 22:24:40 GMT -5
For personal harassment, the differentiation is left up to the victim. Because they're the victim and I believe they're the ones whose opinions should be followed seeing as different people have different levels of tolerances for different things.

As for game trolling, I just made the change we agreed upon. It's up to the moderator's discretion, and they can ask the webmaster if they're not sure.

The 30 minute ban, is a good start to let people know their behaviour won't be tolerated. I think it'll be enough in most cases. If it is not enough, then the moderator is free to choose what they deem fit. It could even be an indefinite ban until the aggressor has apologized, and promised to improve their behaviour. And even then, the 30 minute ban is given as an idea of what a moderator should do. Day long, or week long bans for instance would be ridiculous in most cases.

Honestly, I'd rather set it at an hour, but Dan said it should be 30 minutes, so I'm making sure he has a say in this seeing as he actually bothered to make sure he'll have a say.

Once again, I'd like to stress that I think all these "rules" should be more of a guideline. It's to give people an idea of what kind of conduct is expected of them and what kind of reprimands they can expect if they act out of line.
Posted by altoh
Jun 14, 2010 3:30:32 GMT -5
In my humble opinion, these two rulesets are both too wordy and far too catering to individuals. Wording and situations described should be kept neutral as to ensure that the rules are neutral and that no one is exempt from not acting like a dickfuck.

Here's what I think the ruleset needs: Brevity. A punishment that is firm enough to discourage people from acting like dickfucks. Wording that encompasses everyone.

Rule #1: You can either act like a five year old, or not. There's a distinct difference.
Rule #2: Acting like a five year old gets you a six hour ban.