2018-11-07 19:20:07

At this point, requiring a total of three or more people to sign off does represent a majority of staff. That may not always be true, of course, but it is right now.
As far as requiring an admin? I'm neither strongly for or strongly against this. On one hand, admins are higher rank, and if this is invoked, this would be another form of check. On the other hand, frankly if matters have gotten this far, it's not going to be rammed into effect in 2.5 hours when someone puts a toe over the line.

This is something I'd consider though. This is a last-ditch worst-case scenario, after all. I really and truly do want this clause in effect, but if it makes you folks feel safer to have this many checks against it being misused, I can see that.

And Aaron, thank you for the public apology.1

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up

2018-11-07 19:22:29

@101, yes. If you seriously are determined that a rule like this should exist, then we need as many checks in place as possible. If all the checks fail, then the rule isn't invoked; but if they all pass, they rule is invoked. (Or do I have the roles reversed?)

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up

2018-11-07 19:43:58 (edited by Jayde 2018-11-07 19:47:15)

Depends on your definition of a check. lol It's either a check against abuse, or a check to confer validation.

Here is the minimum amount of steps that could result in this clause firing.

1. A user has been punished more than three separate times (warnings or bans)
2. Evidence exists to suggest that the user's behaviour is not changing, or not changing enough, to fall within the rules; this evidence would come in the form of continued breaches of rules after warnings, or dodging around the warning timer mentioned in Discipline Breakdown.
3. A member of staff speaks to the mod mailing list to discuss the use of the clause, citing the problematic behaviour and the fact that it appears persistent and unlikely to stop on its own.
4. Consensus of 3 staff members or more must be reached (perhaps involving at least 1 admin).
5. When all those conditions are met, the evidence available is presented in a closed thread where all mods/staff members in agreement essentially proclaim that they support the invocation of the clause.
6. The clause is invoked and punishment is decided.

Alternatively,

6. The user is contacted, shown the appropriate thread, and given a single chance to right their behaviour. At this point, they are on the very edge of a ban, and deserve to know what's going on if somehow they didn't before. Any further breach of rules is punished immediately by any staff member in accordance with what was decided. No further deliberation is necessary.

And no, before anyone goes after this, that doesn't mean if you get warned once a month for four months, you're suddenly going to be railroaded onto the ban list. A person who seems to get monthly warnings for a prolonged period of time may be monitored, however, because long-term tendencies to foster toxicity are what this rule is meant to protect us all from.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up

2018-11-07 19:53:30

I've been saying all along that it should require a majority vote, or as Ethin put it. a quorum. I thought quorum was meat substitute for vegans?

2018-11-07 20:01:01

Majority of staff, yes. I'd be okay with that. And I have no truly strong feeling on whether or not an admin should be involved, but I can see your point, Ethin. I think any staff should be able to bring it to the table, but if at least one admin has to sign off on it, that's fair enough.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up

2018-11-07 20:14:37

For a real world analogy, let's look at nuclear weapons. Why? Because I feel like rule 10 is equivalent to a nuclear deterrent. So, to launch a nuke you don't just have one person in charge. You have the President authorizing the launch, then it goes down through the chain of command to the silo. The silo has checks and balances in place. No one sole key is able to launch a missile. It takes multiple people working together, with specialized procedures, to actualy launch a nuke.

Now...how is that relevant? Well....

The admins are like the chain of command. Let's say Arc wants to invoke rule 10 on, let's say Bob. He motions it, the mods and admins agree. Now it trickles down to different mods who all have to agree. In effect, turn their launch keys together, and the clause is invoked. THere's inbuilt safeguards in both the nuclear launch system, and the system I outlined above. It's not a perfect 1:1 replica, but as a general idea.....

If in doubt, chocolate and coffee. Enough said.

Thumbs up

2018-11-07 20:20:44

It's always been that way, even from the start. It was never intended to be usable by one person with no checks. The checks are far more clearly stated now, however.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up

2018-11-07 20:44:49

Right, however...when Dark was the chief, it looked from an outsider's perspective like he was using the proverbial launch keys all by himself. I'm not saying that's the truth. I'm saying it looked like that. Call it inactive mods (who shoul, IMO be removed but that's for another topic if they aren't doing mod things for long, long stretches of time), call it Dark being the most willing to step in, call it whatever. The point is, yes those checks were in place, but they *seemed* to not do a thing. Now Dark's gone. You say oh, there's more checks. Yet you've made your mistakes and the other mods/admins only came out of the woodwork after the mistakes. Where were those in place checks and balances when you were making your mistakes? On a private mods only list? Okay. But publically, it seemed as if you had the reins and the shotgun, and nobody was tugging that train back, so to speak. Again, it looked like you were calling all the shots with no checks and balancs in play at all. It looked like that....regardless of how it really was. Presedntation is everything, it was presented so, so poorly from, all the mods and admins.

If in doubt, chocolate and coffee. Enough said.

Thumbs up +1

2018-11-07 20:55:41

Apologies for the promotion on this, but I did open a topic which discusses this sort of thing. It's a longer read, but I wanted to get my thoughts and feelings down.
http://forum.audiogames.net/topic/26456 … oderators/

2018-11-07 22:37:49

A few things.

1. Quorum. The required minimum number of people for business to be conducted, a vote to count, etc. Example: There are ten moderators. One of them wants to invoke rule 8 (previously rule 10) on a particular user. Three other moderators are involved in the discussion. Of these four, three vote to invoke the clause, one is against. Normally this might be enough to proceed. However, remember that there are ten moderators in this example scenario. Let's say the quorum is six. Since only four moderators were involved, even though the majority of those voting are in favor, the quorum was not met, and so the vote doesn't count, and nothing can happen.

2. Personal attacks. I know this is common sense to most of us, but I see several types of personal attacks here, which I'll outline below. Please note, example attacks shown here are not intended to be actual personal attacks, just examples.

A: Personal attack against a specific forum member. "Jaybird is a stupid idiot for coming up with all these examples."

B: Personal attack against a group of people, or a business, on the forum. "Jaybird's Joyful Games is a worthless piece of crap, I purchased one of their games and it was awful, they should be wiped off the face of the planet."

C: Attack against a company or group of non-specific individuals. "Those idiots at Microsoft won't let me delay updating Windows."

D: Personal attack against a specific, unnamed person, probably posted in the heat of the moment, and not really meant as a personal attack. "The stupid idiot at McDonalds who got my order wrong."

Thumbs up

2018-11-08 00:29:48

Example A: Direct personal attack, would receive a caution or a warning
Example B: same as above
Example C: This isn't attacking a forum user, and would only be issued a caution or warning if the post was really, really ugly; in its current state, it wouldn't raise any eyebrows
Example D: Same as example C

I believe I've reworded rule 8 to suggest that a staff majority, including at least one admin, has to agree to invoke community failure.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up

2018-11-09 05:30:17

Rule 3 in its current form will probably lead to lots of arguments as to what is considered illegal. E.G., some people thinking that the movie vault movies are illegal, and others don't. So maybe just restrict it to audiogame cracks to avoid this, I'm sure that has near universal support as being bad.
Apparently unlike many other people I'm fine with rule 8, it makes sense especially the example jayde gave of someone causing trouble everytime their warning expires. And it does have the requirements that several moderators must agree, which should help. I'm less sure about rule 6 though, but I don't feel like arguing about it at the moment, I'll might make a proper post about it later.

Thumbs up

2018-11-09 05:48:01

You're right, of course. Rule 3 has tricky bits in it. I don't know if the audio only track of a movie would be illegal or not, honestly. I should go and find that out. If it turns out that it's technicaly illegal though, that'll close the loophole. Generally the forum has been vague on this point of legality except in very clear-cut cases. It's taken a firm stance against straight-up torrenting programs or software or copyrighted material, but has tended to go for a don't-ask-don't-tell take on all the rest. We've never faced any legal complications yet, as far as I can tell, but if you allow one thing, under what conditions is it safe, and under what conditions is it not?

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up

2018-11-09 06:39:04

Yeah, other than the new EU stuff currently on the way, most legal issues that the forum might have would be avoided by implementing a proper draconian DMCA system. I think actually that might help with the EUCD as well. Considering the size of this forum, deleting infringing material quickly shouldn't be a problem. I know, I know. No one wants to really deal with the whole Mods really essentially needing to brutally crack down on piracy and illegal content, but for the sake of how Copyright laws work, that may be necessary. That being said, would this forum ever, given its current method of doing things, ever gain safe harbor by merely adding a proper DMCA system? Aside from that, rule 3 should work out fine. Really, if we want that to get better, someone really needs to get around to writing better copyright laws. Hmm...We can only dream that will actually happen.

Thumbs up +1

2018-11-10 16:49:22

For the legality of audio only movie tracks. They are still created and copyrighted by a rights holder. At least, acording to one attorney's interpretation of copyright law.

Link with citations and sources: http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/DMCA_Safe_Harbors

Now. Whether the forum is a service provider is a big point. Next up would be, assuming it is one, meeting the requirements. Reading on those, the forum does not, in my mind, qualify for safe harbor. THe hosting company, however...does. WHich leads to another point. THe hosting company can lose the safe harbor if one of its customers iss caught out with copyright infringement.
The second safe harbor category limits ISP liability when its engages in “caching” of online content for purposes of improving network performance. Caching[14] helps to reduce the service provider’s network congestion and increase download speeds for subsequent requests for the same data. For example,

If in doubt, chocolate and coffee. Enough said.

Thumbs up

2018-11-10 17:16:11

You know, this is the second time I've seen this happen. Did JaceK cut off the post, or did the forum do that...Again...

Thumbs up

2018-11-10 17:28:12

That'd be Firefox cutting off my post. I was going to quote the requirements to be certified for safe harbor...but....they're on that link.

If in doubt, chocolate and coffee. Enough said.

Thumbs up

2018-11-11 07:30:48

well, I have read the updated set of rules and while probably they are not perfect, I have noted a balance, and that is good. I like the  examples instead of the analogies, but if someone speaks English as a second language (I was lucky to know indictment because I am a language bookworm) they would probably have no idea what that would mean, so A post with simpler rules or more examples would be better. I also have yet to see something which could have a bit of containment when mods or ex mods try to stab at each other in public, (there are some examples of that in here, of course) so its est if some impartiality is maintained in some way.

Thumbs up

2018-11-19 03:59:51

I know this is a relatively old/inactive topic, but one thing I was surprised not to see is something about not posting game puzzle/plot/story spoilers without extremely clear warning that spoilers follow.

Thumbs up

Yesterday 18:13:02

I'd consider that more of a guideline than a rule though, although it's an interesting and quite important one.

Thumbs up

Today 05:37:33

I think I would agree with Aaron about making that a guideline, though, I wonder, would it be practical or even possible to introduce spoiler tag functionality so that spoiler/very windy information can be collapsed?

Thumbs up