|
|
Post by Anastasia on Jun 14, 2010 5:42:40 GMT -5
People have been asking for a clearer and more concise set of rules. They've asked for one that is largely left up to common sense and is general enough to not only give a moderator enough power to act on a case by case basis, but also to prevent people from abusing a very specific set of rules that may permit some loopholes to be exploited. I feel this set reflects all that. And I'd also really like to thank Hotaru as I mostly just took her rules set and rephrased it.
Hopefully this will be the one that most people will be able to agree with. So I'd like to say that we've moved on from 1.5 and 2.0 and that if you want, you can ignore every rules set preceding this one.
Comments are strongly encouraged.
-----------------------
Chat room usage is a privilege and the community would like to stress the following:
1.) No senseless spamming.
2.) Constructive criticisms of RPGs is encouraged by staff. Destructive whining, complaining and trolling is not.
3.) Free speech is very much your right, but repetitive harassment will not be tolerated. (Victims are encouraged to seek out the help of a moderator).
4.) No moderator abuse. Moderators are subject to the same code of conduct as everyone else. Misuse of mod powers will be subject to probation or complete loss of moderator status.
5.) Moderators are encouraged to give one warning before banning. Ban duration is left up to the moderator's discretion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ketara on Jun 14, 2010 10:20:41 GMT -5
First of all, this set is different from the 3.0 that's on the Requiem Echo forums. Rule 3 is different, it doesn't contain the "This includes discrimination of certain groups: No racism, sexism, ageism, religious discrimination etc." here. I very much prefer it without that, because I don't want it to make it seem like we can't discuss religion etc. in a way that does not offend people. I am also against a rule against spamming, for obvious reasons. You guys really need to get over yourselves in regards to the spam. It is hilarious, because you perceive 10 lines of cocks as bad, therefor it becomes bad. I like the rewording of the warning before ban rule. Encouraged does not mean required, which allows a mod to go straight to a ban in an extreme situation. Other than that, it seems good. Oh and, the set Hotaru posted was actually way more strict than this, you need English lessons, Anastasia  |
|
|
|
Post by Ketara on Jun 14, 2010 10:26:03 GMT -5
Two things I would add: An additional sentence to line 2 quantifying what the difference between constructive criticism and trolling is. "Staff of the RPG in question will decide when criticism has become unhealthy."
Second, if you're going to add a line about listing out sexism religion etc blah blah as possible offenses, you need something that prevents a person tertiary to a conversation from deciding they are offended and thereby stopping the conversation. For example, if Aleksei and I are having an in depth and serious conversation about the slang involved in homosexual subculture (has happened before) and we aren't really including much of the rest of the chat, James isn't allowed to stand up and say "I am offended by what they are talking about that has little to do with me" and then a mod bans both of us.
Harassment should have to be directed at the person who is making the claim, whether it's aggressively or passively.
|
|
kuriboh
ZMF 
Registered Newtype
Is Miang. Maybe.
Posts: 1,738
|
Post by kuriboh on Jun 14, 2010 11:41:37 GMT -5
Re: the spam: If it's an occasional thing, I think it's alright. 10 lines of Cocks doesn't hurt anyone. 100 lines? Eh, that's another matter entirely. Again, I think that should be left up to the mods, but in the grand scheme of things, Spam isn't that big a deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ketara on Jun 14, 2010 11:56:09 GMT -5
That's basically the point. Every time I spam, it is only a dozen or so lines, and it is hilarious. I don't do 100 lines of spam, and the two-three times that I have, it's been when nobody else was around or everybody was idling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cid on Jun 14, 2010 13:45:41 GMT -5
I like them. They're aren't too wordy, or strict, or even that constraining, but they set a good guideline for us all to follow.
|
|
Frenzy
ZMF Officer
Commander
Could be Ramsus.
Posts: 2,152
|
Post by Frenzy on Jun 14, 2010 18:04:07 GMT -5
I think that there should be set limits on bans so a mod in a bad mood doesn't take things too far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ketara on Jun 14, 2010 18:15:36 GMT -5
Ban limits aren't as big of a deal as ban minimums. A ban can always be overturned at a later date, and we log everything, so worst case scenario, if a ban is given out for a bad reason then it will probably be corrected the same day.
In order for an unfair ban to go out, you'd have to piss off ALL the moderators, and probably me as well, in which case a lengthy ban is probably going to be deserved.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anastasia on Jun 14, 2010 18:28:58 GMT -5
That's just the thing. If you write 5 lines of spam, it won't really annoy people. But people have definitely spammed for more than 10 lines in the past and they've done it quite a few times. And Ketara, regardless of what you say, it annoys a lot of people. A lot of people don't want to see it. I've asked people numerous times about this and they've told me just that. In any case, I won't be the one to have the final say in this, and neither will you. If the majority agrees with it, then so be it. If they don't, then so be it.
And I KNEW the line about "No sexism, racism etc" would bug you. Because you're exactly the type of offensive people to say such things frequently and not care if someone is offended. Not trying to offend you, but I can't in all honesty take your opinion on this. In any case, I was wary of including such a thing myself (because it was too specific and if it is actually harassment then it should be dealt with), but more people agreed that that line should be there. So it's there, in the RE forums. Yet, I agree that having the rules sets differ is a bad idea for obvious reasons...
As for the difference between "constructive criticism" and "trolling", look at the word "destructive". It's there for a reason. "Staff of the RPG in question will decide when criticism has become unhealthy," is very much implied with the whole "Destructive whining, complaining and trolling is not." This is where common sense should come into play: If it's constructive, it'll be allowed. If it causes more harm than good, it won't be allowed. There is nothing stopping RPG Staff from deciding when criticism has become unhealthy and seeking out the aid of a moderator with this set of rules.
And I say the same thing in reference to the example you used with the homosexual conversation. Common sense would have it that no mod would punish either of you if the conversation is serious and not meant to harass anyone. Everyone has been saying "Well, you need a good mod that should be able to make such a distinction." And everyone has been complaining of rules sets that are too long and wordy. So I'm doing my best to make a set that reflects all that.
Frenzy: Yeah, the ban limit is a real issue there. There have even been cases in the past when moderators have definitely banned people for far too long. They don't happen often, but they have happened. No one is agreeing on a set time limit though. I say one hour at least, Dan says 30 minutes at least. Another person has said 6 hours at least. It really does depend on the offense, but people keep on saying that we just have to trust to have responsible moderators. I guess ... my opinion would be to have 24-48 hour bans be the limit. But I'd really, really like to discourage such long bans and say one or two hours should be enough in most cases. I'd like to hear the opinion of more people on this, while still stressing that ban duration be left up to the moderator's discretion.
So far we have these iffy things that people want added:
- Inclusion of: "Staff of the RPG in question will decide when criticism has become unhealthy."
- Inclusion of: Ban limits.
So discuss!
(Goodness gracious am I long winded. -.-;)
Edit: I've got to agree with Ketara's opinion on ban limits here.
|
|
kuriboh
ZMF
Registered Newtype
Is Miang. Maybe.
Posts: 1,738
|
Post by kuriboh on Jun 14, 2010 18:52:17 GMT -5
Ban minimums/limits should fit the crimes. Someone's spamming, eh, kick 'em for five and see if they've learrned their lesson.
Blatant hate speech with the intent to troll/hurt feelings? might be worth a day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anastasia on Jun 14, 2010 19:21:21 GMT -5
I am seriously considering this in regards to spamming:
[07:47:26] [Ketara] Yeah how about you JUST REMOVE THE RULE, and if a mod thinks that somebody is spamming and it is HARASSMENT towards other members they can ban them for the HARASSMENT rule.
Heck, I'll probably do it anyways. Just letting you all know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ketara on Jun 14, 2010 19:26:26 GMT -5
The reason why you add the staff will decide line, Anastasia, is so that I don't have to go through long winded arguments over whether or not a specific line of comments is trolling or not. All that does is further the damage and take more of my time. If you don't have such a line, I am forced to engage in such a discussion with anybody who wants to say "I wasn't trolling" which will be everybody.
Adding the line allows me to just say "you were trolling" and have that be the end of it.
Taking out the line about racism sexism etc. prevents people from getting up in arms about topics that have nothing to do with them. #rpg is and has always been an adult room where we talk about adult topics, and adding a list like that makes the very act of discussing those topics harassment in and of itself, rather than the intention of actually harassing somebody.
I don't want somebody to say "Ketara called that other guy a faggot and that is bigotry and offends me." and have that be called harassment. That's not harassment, that's somebody trying to impose their own beliefs on the room.
|
|
akunzepp
Full Member
Captain Tony Knight
Posts: 342
|
Post by akunzepp on Jun 14, 2010 19:33:08 GMT -5
I vote for no rules; but if there must be any, the fewer the better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anastasia on Jun 15, 2010 3:57:08 GMT -5
Rules Final (draft)
1.) Senseless Spamming is (at least) a kickable offense.
2.) Constructive criticisms of RPGs is encouraged by staff. Destructive whining, complaining and trolling is not. Staff of the RPG in question will decide when criticism has become unhealthy.
3.) Free speech is very much your right, but repetitive harassment will not be tolerated. (Victims are encouraged to seek out the help of a moderator).
4.) No moderator abuse. Moderators are subject to the same code of conduct as everyone else. Misuse of mod powers will be subject to probation or complete loss of moderator status.
5.) Moderators are encouraged to give one warning before banning. Ban duration is left up to the moderator's discretion.
Does this please you, oh-I'll-kick-and-cry-and-harass-people-until-I-get-my-way-and-hold-the-RPG-ransom dude?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ketara on Jun 15, 2010 9:41:51 GMT -5
No. Remove the no spamming rule.
|
|
