|
|
Post by Anastasia on Jun 10, 2010 2:35:42 GMT -5
Edit: We've discussed quite a bit already and if you don't want to have to read everything just head over to these two places: Rules 1.5: oywrpg4.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=5spam&action=display&thread=3697Rules 2.0: oywrpg4.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=5spam&action=display&thread=3698Discussions for both 1.5 and 2.0 will be happening at the same time. You can vote for either 1.5, 2.0 or both. If you have a preference, please let us know. I'd also like to apologize at my questionable choice of urging people not to vote if they weren't going to comment. And the fact that I said I'll be disregarding votes if they're not followed with comments. While I'd like to urge people to do both (especially commenting), it's hard for me to completely ignore votes whether or not they're accompanied by commentary. So I'd like to retract the post below (with the red bold font) and state this: All votes will be taken into considering. Yet I still urge you to at least post a sentence or two of commentary so you can give us an idea of what direction you want us heading towards. Any opinion (whether vote or comment) is important to us, but written comments are what will be the most helpful.I'd also like to inform those of you who have an issue with the webmaster's behaviour (Dan, Isaiah etc) that he has agreed to refrain from the worst of his bouts, and to just overall improve his behaviour in the chat room. He has volunteered to do this without being asked and will of course be subject to the same rules as anyone else. ------------------------------------------------------ The following rules have been set up for #RPG by Jim, Tian and I. Please vote seriously and post your feedback. Do you think these rules are fair? Do you think anything should be changed, added or deleted? Let us know. In the meantime four new full ops will be appointed on a trial basis. They are Radune, Daren, Cid and Threid (all five of you please find me in chat). These Ops will be fully expected to abide by and enforce the following: 1. Rules of conductThere'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. • Sexually offensive comments directed at anyone in the room. • Racially offensive comments directed at anyone in the room. • Religiously offensive comments directed at anyone in the room. 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. Chat Usage is a Privilege- Chat usage is a privilege. We all play in these games to have fun. And we use the chat room as a method of not only an easy and convenient channel of communication for these games, but also to just goof off and share our interests etc. 4. 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 (pm them). The moderator may choose to act either as a mediator (do not count on this), or just simply address the aggressor privately and notify them that if their behaviour doesn't change, they will be reprimanded.
5. Methods of Reprimanding for Infractions- 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 an hour. If even this doesn't work, more drastic measures will be taken. |
|
akunzepp
Full Member
Captain Tony Knight
Posts: 342
|
Post by akunzepp on Jun 10, 2010 3:02:37 GMT -5
These are very good rules, but enforced too much may induce tyranny. The key is in moderate enforcement; and if that is granted, they're all admirable.
|
|
Isaiah
ZMF 
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Moves like Acguy
Posts: 392
|
Post by Isaiah on Jun 10, 2010 6:54:17 GMT -5
• Complaints of games in progress without first addressing your concerns with the webmaster.
• Trolling of the webmaster/game.
• Sexually offensive comments directed at anyone in the room.
• Racially offensive comments directed at anyone in the room.
• Religiously offensive comments directed at anyone in the room.
Everyday chat life in short.
Honestly, it's hard not to troll if the webmaster does it almost regularly, even if you're just asking a simple question then get a less than acceptable answer most of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by on Jun 10, 2010 15:50:13 GMT -5
• Complaints of games in progress without first addressing your concerns with the webmaster. • Trolling of the webmaster/game. These two are the worst. The trolling of the webmaster is just idiotic. Clear trolling of him should be punished but on several dozen occasions the webmaster of the game this board is related to has purposely trolled me about trolling. It shouldn't be a rule and it shouldn't be a rule for one simple reason, the webmaster of the games should be given moderation status. You don't need 5 chat moderators since that number is quite ridiculous, instead have 3 and people running any of the games at the moment get moderation powers. This is not just for them to be able to enforce annoying chat goers but also so they can update the topic of the chatroom with helpful information. The current topic is fucking retarded and I hope it starts to get used for actual topics again. • Sexually offensive comments directed at anyone in the room. • Racially offensive comments directed at anyone in the room. • Religiously offensive comments directed at anyone in the room. These are bad and annoying due to their vagueness. Will I be able to carry on a conversation about how the churches are bloated with thieves and money whores building up these amusement parks to God? The comment isn't directed at anyone in the chat, and the conversation has happened in the past, but it doesn't mean religious people among us aren't offended when I referred to their churches as amusement parks. The chat room previously only had the same content barriers as the games they were made to be run and these move to impose harsher restricting. The few times we've had someone overly racist, sexist, or harassing in anyway we nailed them for it. It was simple and plain and it didn't happen often. The hour long ban is too long, People have jobs, they spend 10 hours a day at their jobs, need 8 hours of sleep, and one ban would be removing about a half or third of the time they might enjoy spending in the chatroom. 30 minutes is long enough for any offense, any longer than that and it will put off people being 'happy' and active in chat, on the boards, and in game which is all the chat should be looking to accommodate. If you want to implement these rules on the general population on the room you need additional regulations on the moderators as well. •If a moderator breaks any of the aforementioned rules and is informed about it by a member of the chat he MUST ban himself for the normal ban period. •If another moderator in the chat is active at that time and sees the breaking of the rules by another moderator he must ban him without exception. •Any refusal to self-ban immediately should lead to the revoking of the moderator's powers as they are unfit. Other things the rules don't cover: Flooding/Spamming Misuse of moderation privileges Warnings, should you get one before getting banned on Friday for something you last did a month ago TL:DR list
- Webmasters need to be Moderators.
- Bans are too long, 30m is fine.
- Make rules to cover spam/flooding and mod abuse.
- Mods need to ban eachpther and themselves if informed they've broken a rule without any warning to be given. If they can't handle themselves and feel they need the warning before a ban they can give up the Op.
Keep in mind that while I read through your rules I think the entire thing is a huge fucking mistake. Enough of the chat community is already tired of non-moderation crap they have to worry about that #rpg is now the smaller of the chat rooms, #requiemecho having more people in it for the past few days. Implementing crap like this is just going to drive people away as one of the five mods bans them for crap that shouldn't be punished. For some reason the majority of us are either done with college or in it at the moment, and entering the chatroom has a sign which you'd associate with the McDonalds playpen. |
|
|
|
Post by Ketara on Jun 10, 2010 17:26:51 GMT -5
I pretty much agree with Dan. As everybody knows, I'm always concerned about the context and intentions behind a given infraction, rather than the actual method in which the infraction occurs. My problem with the chat consistently has been that, while problems very rarely occur, the times that they do actually occur, nothing is done about them.
I've never wanted to be a chat moderator, because I want the chat to stand on its own, and not be a channel about a specific game. But the flipside to that becomes when somebody is making the chat about the game, and doing so in a manner that hurts the game, I am forced to rely on the established moderators to solve the problem, something which they never do.
These proposed rules do not attack the context or intention of issues, they attack the methods. I do not want Chris to be banned a dozen times for saying I'm biased because one time Draco did it and was serious. I want the moderators to be able to distinguish between the two, ban Draco, and leave Chris alone.
And I want the moderators to actually DO that, rather than argue it with me until it infuriates me to bouts of hysterics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anastasia on Jun 10, 2010 17:46:13 GMT -5
I agree. People are tired of a lack of chatroom moderation. This is why this is happening to begin with. As for the rules being too vague and needing clarification, that's why I asked for everyone's input in the first place. As for people being driven away by having a set of rules and guidelines to be enforced ... well no one is blind to this fact. Yet chatroom moderation and a decrease in abuse and harassment is what everyone is asking for >.<
Now as for mods having to abide by the rules, that was implied. But you're right: In a case like these the rules for ALL moderators need to be laid out clearly, and it needs to be stated that if any moderator abuses their powers too much that they will have to suffer the consequences. Like for instance, no moderator should be banning people on a whim or just because they are insulted once or twice. Insults happen and these rules are for dealing with harassment and general bad chatroom behaviour that no one wants to deal with.
As for Ketara having Ops, you and I both know that's a touchy subject. It goes everywhere from Ketara saying he doesn't want permanent Ops because he admits he isn't the most mature in the chat and he admits that he doesn't want people to think he has too much power. The latter being something that many people have expressed having a problem with, and something that Ketara is not too blind to. However, I'd like to hear Ketara's full thoughts on this subject as well as everyone else's. I mean, I agree with you that a webmaster should be able to change the topic and such considering that #RPG is the official chatroom for OYW.
As for spam and flooding it's the lesser of all the evils and I say we put it up to a vote/discussion (later) to decide what people are willing to tolerate.
There are three permanent mods. It's not enough especially with Jim and Tian not being around much or at all.
Now, that is something that should of course be frowned upon, but no one wants to regulate the room that much. And once again of course people will be insulted from time to time. We also don't want to curb out free speech in the room. These rules and guidelines are for decreasing harassment and abuse as much as reasonably possible. And quite honestly, I don't think anyone should be banned unless (as stated in my first post) a victim has come to a moderator and said that they're being abused, and that they've done their best to sort it out themselves. It is then the moderator will try to sort out that problem, if they think they are able to. If the issue can't be resolved, then they are to issue a warning. Only if that warning doesn't work should a ban be put into place.
I don't want to (and shouldn't) be coming up with all these decisions myself and be seen as having too much power, either. Thus why I think we should all get this all out in the open and EVERYONE have a say in how #RPG will be moderated. After which all the mods can have a meeting or whatever and decide on the exact rules and codes of conduct to be put in place.
Lastly, you shouldn't bother to vote that you don't agree with any of this if you're not going to offer any insights as to why and give out any suggestions yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ketara on Jun 10, 2010 17:47:34 GMT -5
This is the kind of ruleset that I would like to see:
1 - Do not purposefully attempt to undermine or harm the running of an existing RPG. While criticism is perfectly fine, and in many cases assists in catching errors and smooths the running of the game, trolling a game can often harm the game, by convincing other members that fair things are not fair, causing them to join an unnecessary bandwagon and causing the RPG staff to spend time putting out unnecessary fires that they could spend running the RPG. The staff of the RPG in question will decide when something has crossed the line from criticism and become something unhealthy.
2 - Do not intentionally harass another chat member. We're all jerks in the channel and we all like to say horrible things in the channel, but at the same time we often assume we will not be taken seriously. If a given topic is actually upsetting you, tell the person saying it, as well as a moderator, and appropriate action will be taken.
This is basically what the rules always have been, just sort of, you know, written out. I'll take this time to throw out again that the issue is not with the rules, it's with the channel staff, who do not enforce anything at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinksoyuz on Jun 10, 2010 20:33:40 GMT -5
I do not enforce anything because there is nothing for me to enforce. The justification of me doing *anything* has to be codified to a certain degree and I will not, and cannot act unless I have a mandate with which to operate under.
tl;dr fuck you all.
|
|
Threid
Full Member
Tachiagare, GANDAMU!
Posts: 385
|
Post by Threid on Jun 10, 2010 23:20:53 GMT -5
I was composing a complete, circumspect response, then realized that Ketara had actually said what I was going to say, but in a more concise manner. +1
|
|
kuriboh
ZMF
Registered Newtype
Is Miang. Maybe.
Posts: 1,738
|
Post by kuriboh on Jun 10, 2010 23:46:56 GMT -5
tl;dr, plz banhammer responsibly.
We have heads. Lets use them!
|
|
|
|
Post by Anastasia on Jun 11, 2010 3:41:42 GMT -5
I do not enforce anything because there is nothing for me to enforce. The justification of me doing *anything* has to be codified to a certain degree and I will not, and cannot act unless I have a mandate with which to operate under. Couldn't have said it better myself. This is why the mods (as per Ketara's words) "do not enforce anything at all." We went years with no agreed upon guidelines to act upon as any set rules faded out into oblivion as our numbers dwindled due to a lack of any successful and long running RPG's. |
|
|
|
Post by Ketara on Jun 11, 2010 11:22:18 GMT -5
That is just an excuse for your own inequities. If you need a ruleset, adopt the one I presented and actually follow it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anastasia on Jun 11, 2010 21:09:09 GMT -5
Let's stray away from the blame game, Ketara. Otherwise so many people will just be pointing fingers at everyone. This is about actually doing something positive. Your concerns about a lack of action on the mods have been heard, accepted and is currently being dealt with.
Once again, I'd like to remind people DO NOT BOTHER VOTING FOR "I don't agree with any of these rules" IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TELL US WHY AND GIVE US ANY SUGGESTIONS. If I see 20 people vote for that option, but only five people replying, the rest of the 15 votes won't be taken into account. Seriously.
Currently, I'm hearing from most people that these "rules" are too strict and that they'd rather just trust have people to "follow common sense." So we'll be adjusting in that direction if that turns out to be the most common opinion. Or heck, just stress that the "rules" be more of a loose guideline or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by on Jun 12, 2010 3:09:12 GMT -5
What is the point of people voting if you refuse to accept their opinions? Why did you even include the damn poll? You're posing this rule set as something democratic, yet once people voice their opinions you're imposing your own will over what they believe like some sort of chat room tyrant.
You made it a poll, the choice above it says "I mostly disagree, but ... (please elaborate)" and no one has voted for it and elaborated, the many who have voted for "I don't agree with any of these rules & guidelines" believe just that.
They don't feel like explaining it out most likely because the words "I don't agree with any of these rules" explains their vote to a large enough degree that it doesn't constitute them responding to the post with the same words.
Your negative response to their voting is completely uncalled for and I know damn well whatever country you are from when and if you vote on anything for the government you simply make that choice on a ballot and they don't constitute your opinion as void or trivial since it lacked a full well worded response paper clipped to your poll vote.
I honestly hope you were intoxicated when you felt justified writing out the words DO NOT BOTHER VOTING in bold and red font promising to disregard the community or else you've sunk to a level much lower than yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinksoyuz on Jun 12, 2010 9:19:12 GMT -5
herp derp :B
|
|
