2018-11-06 14:24:18 (edited by Jayde 2018-11-09 05:50:25)

Hi all,

As promised, we've drafted a new and hopefully more comprehensive version of the rules, which you can read below. We encourage you to give us your opinions on these rules, and ask that you do so in a polite and courteous manner. Please try and stay on topic within this thread as much as possible, as we aim to have a productive discussion here. We would love to know what you folks think, and actively welcome your point of view both as individuals and as a community.

*************Forum Guidelines

By using this site and its associated forums, you agree to try and abide by the guidelines as much as possible. These are put in place to help everyone communicate clearly and to minimize confusion. You will not face punishment for failing to adhere to our guidelines unless you are doing so repeatedly for a prolonged period of time.

1. This website is public, and can be read by anyone. Please bear this in mind when posting, and share only what you are comfortable with sharing.

2. Please use English when you post. This is the official language of the forums, and while we respect people of any nationality, the staff team's only universal language is English. We will make every effort to support those whose mother tongue is not English.

3. Please try to put new topics in the correct forum, and give them titles which have something to do with what the topic is about. For instance, a topic entitled "Hello" in the Introduce Yourself forum would make sense, but a topic called "Hello" in the General Games Discussion might be unclear. If you place a topic in the wrong forum, it will be moved, but you will face no disciplinary action for it.

4. If you find a post that breaks the rules and which has not yet been responded to by a member of the staff team, please feel free to report it. This will give us a notification telling us that someone has flagged a post for investigation and potential moderation. Not all reported posts will result in punitive action, but we will look into all reports to determine their validity. Thank you in advance for helping us do our job.

Forum Rules

By using this website and its associated forums, you are agreeing to follow its rules. Failure to do so will result in disciplinary action dependent upon the rule that was broken and the effect it has on the community.

1. Each person is permitted one (1) account. Duplicate accounts will be deleted, and users guilty of creating duplicate accounts for any reason will be subject to disciplinary action.

2. Everyone has the right to expect fair treatment. We are all individuals with equal rights and responsibilities. This means you should try and be polite when disagreeing with others. When in doubt, disagree with the post, not the person. Name-calling and personal attacks are not allowed. Moderators and administrators will become involved if members are abusing one another. Please do not attack or insult anyone on the basis of their age, race, gender, beliefs, sexual orientation, political affiliation, intelligence, ability level  or lifestyle choices.

3. The discussion, sharing or encouragement of illegal material (game cracks, copyrighted torrents that are not in the public domain, etc.) is not allowed. Not only can this hurt our community, but it can also lead to potential legal complications. This also means you may not discuss the methods by which you might crack a game or program, and should not make any efforts to undermine anyone's security or livelihood. This is a rule we take very seriously.

4. Spam will not be tolerated, and we will make every effort to keep spambots and the like away from the forum, or to limit the annoyance they cause when they inevitably show up.

5. Please do not hijack someone else's topic. Conversations change and evolve, but users who make a habit of derailing other people's conversations may face disciplinary action.

6. When moderators or administrators do choose to step into a discussion in an official capacity, we do so because we believe it is necessary. Usually, such intervention takes the form of closing a topic, or asking a subject to cool down. We ask that users in such a situation follow all related instructions from staff members to the best of their ability. Staff will attempt to maintain a hands-off approach wherever we can, but in the event this is not possible, we expect your help in making sure the forum continues to run smoothly.

7. If you are banned from the forum, you may appeal it formally, but you may not attempt to get around it and access the forum by any means.

8. This forum possesses a community failure clause. In the event that all other available methods fail to stop someone's problematic behaviour, the administration may cite this clause in order to bring punitive action outside of the natural discipline protocol. The user's behaviour history will be summarized clearly and concisely in a closed thread visible to the public, and the administrators and moderators will justify their punishment based on demonstrable evidence of wrongdoing. A staff majority, including at least one (1) administrator,must be reached before this clause can be used to punish someone. Staff may, at their discretion, attempt to give the user in question one final chance to improve their behaviour, but if problems persist, the agreed-upon punishment will be enforced immediately and without further deliberation.


Discipline Breakdown

Cautions
A caution is an action taken when someone has breached one of our guidelines or has broken a rule in a small way. Cautions are not punishments and will not affect a user in any way except to notify them that they are stepping a little out of line; they are meant solely as a way to get back on track. A user might be issued a caution if they post in the wrong forum or use an unclear subject line for a new topic, or if they issue a potential personal attack whose status is in doubt.

Warning
A warning is an action taken by a staff member to alert a user that their behaviour is unacceptable. Each user will be allotted three (3) warnings. When those warnings are used up, the next offense will lead to a ban.
Warnings expire at a rate of 1 every seven (7) days. Users who attempt to use this to their advantage may be punished under the community failure clause (rule 8) in accordance with their actions.
If a user is banned, they will have a flag on their character for exactly one (1) year following the termination of their last banning. This flag means that their warnings will expire at a reduced rate (every thirty (30) days). This is to indicate that a banned user has demonstrated that they need more watching than another user might.
A user can only ever be banned a total of 3 (3) times; the fourth ban will be permanent.
The severity of successive bans is as follows:
First ban: 30 days
Second ban: 90 days
3rd ban: 1 year
4th ban: permanent
A user returning from a ban has their warnings reset so that they are not constantly in danger of being re-banned.

Certain actions will result in an immediate ban, which may or may not be permanent depending on severity:
Issuing threats of harm to another user (physical violence or death threats)
Providing links to cracks or other illegal material
Hacking or attempting to hack anyone on the forum, or the forum itself
Any operational interference meant to stop the website from running
Attempting to scam any forum user out of their personal details (passwords of any kind, address, personal social media details, etc.))
Public sharing of personally identifiable information of any user without their express consent where that information is not otherwise available (such as divulging real name, telephone number or physical address)
Proven illegal activity which threatens the community (sexual predation, exploitation of a minor or of a person of limited faculties, etc.)
This list is not exhaustive, and we reserve the right to add to it if we see problematic behaviours that were not mentioned here but which represent a danger to the community.

Clarifications

Personal Attacks
A personal attack is a statement which directly attacks another user, either by denouncing their behaviour in a negative light or by straight-up name-calling. Some examples follow.
"You suck" - this is a clear personal attack
"Your game is stupid" - this is a personal attack in that something you have created is being called a derogatory name; this will likely result in a caution instead of a warning unless it is often repeated
"I don't like you" - this is sharp, but not a personal attack; users are free to dislike one another
"You're power-hungry/you get your kicks from shutting people up" - this is an indictment of one's character without definite proof, and can be interpreted as a personal attack; it is subject to individual interpretation
Some cases of personal attacks are very clear, and will be dealt with under rule 2. Others are more questionable, and where this occurs, we will ensure that at least two (2) staff members hold the same opinion before engaging in any disciplinary action.
Repeated, prolonged or targeted personal attacks will eventually fall under rule 8, the community failure clause.

Character Assassination
Character assassination is defined as the slandering of a person or group of people with intent to destroy or seriously undermine confidence in that person or group without adequate reason. This falls under rule 2, but will be explained here in more detail.
"Bob is always banning me from his game because he doesn't like me." If Bob is doing this as advertised, this is not character assassination; if Bob has done this once and for legitimate/demonstrably good reason, this would count, as it exaggerates a negative opinion out of focus.
"Jill has made bad decisions and I don't think she deserves to run that website anymore." This, again, is not character assassination if there is some sort of proof. If there is no proof, it is considered a form of character assassination, as it attempts to remove trust in Jill without good reason.
The simplest way to look at it is this. If you have a good reason to question someone or to call out their behaviour, keep to the facts. If you blow facts out of proportion, or make one example look like a pattern, or try and speak as if you know exactly what the person is thinking instead of just telling us what they're doing, that is probably going to count as character assassination.
Any instance where this is deemed to have taken place will be investigated by at least two (2) staff members, and hopefully more, to ensure that personal bias is playing as small a role as possible. Serious examples of character assassination will fall under both rule 2 and rule 8, so please consider before you post.

Staff Protocol

1. In the event of cautions and warnings, any moderator may issue them it their discretion. When doing so, the staff member should clearly denote that their words are coming from a position of authority, and should cite the rule that has been breached.
Example: Moderation: JaneDoe, you are in violation of rule 2. By telling JohnDoe that he is a "stupid worthless idiot", you have engaged in a personal attack. This is your first warning. Please refrain from breaking the rules in future.
Staff members may issue a warning even within a topic to which they are already contributing in a non-staff capacity, but only where the offensive post or posts are clear-cut examples of broken rules. Any questions of personal attacks and the like should be vetted by a second staff member before any official action is taken.
2. When a staff member feels that the community failure clause should be used, they will speak to other staff members and, if at least two (2) other members agree, publish the examples of previous behaviour by the affected person or people publicly in a closed thread.Changing the discipline protocol will only happen if consensus is reached.
3. Staff may, at their discretion, reach out to a given user privately in order to attempt to resolve issues. This may be particularly important when the community failure clause is at play. This is an option, not a requirement, but every reasonable effort should be taken to ensure that a user is never ignorant of the case against them.
4. It should go without saying, but staff members should never punish other users for differing stances, differences of opinion or other non-rule-related disagreements. If a staff member is suspected of doing this, they will be subject to internal audit via the other members of the team, and may face disciplinary action up to and including the following: a formal public request to avoid moderation decisions for a specific user, an official public warning, loss of rank, loss of all staff rights, banning in accordance with the discipline policy above. The action taken against the offending staff member will depend upon the severity of action and will be prosecuted using the community failure clause (rule 8). We take our accountability and transparency very seriously.

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

Thumbs up +4

2018-11-06 14:29:00

I love these rules. I feel like 5 and 6 are sort of the same thing. IE. 6 goes hand in hand with 5.

2018-11-06 14:37:07 (edited by braille0109 2018-11-06 21:11:37)

I feel as if rules 6 and 8 need either rewriting, and or further clarification.
on another note, am I correct in thinking that these were written by Jayde, and approved by the rest of the team?

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 15:08:19

So for a little insight on how rules are usually drafted.
Again. I can't speak for this instance, but I've had experience with this sort of thing so this is how it seems to work.

A member writes up a rough draft of rules trying to encapsulate what has been discussed amongst all the members of a governing body. They attempt to include what is considered to be appropriate conduct and punishments for breach of that conduct.
They present their draft to that governing body who then suggest any changes or amendments to the document. Then like in this case, a draft is presented for members to discuss amongst themselves. This is the time where clarifications are made.

It's very possible that Jayde did draft a set of rules. This should not in any way invalidate the document, as it has been discussed amongst the admins. I would however like to see some other admins chime in on what their thoughts are. Granted this document was posted all of 30 minutes ago, so as users we've gotta give everyone time to comment and such.
I would agree that 7 may need to be clarified a bit better. I am also confused about the rate at which warnings are removed. It gets slightly convoluted.

2018-11-06 15:53:04

Hmm. For me, rules 6, 9 and 11 (particularly 11) look a bit too spotty. I get the intention in 11, but I think this is way to blanketed. For example, I'd think it would be better to take the sort of examples you list below, and put them in a list in rule 11. Also, when do you activate rule 11, and when do you just decide to go back and edit the rules. Such situations, while rare, when they do come up could be a real problem. Rule 6 is really a troublesome little thing as we do have an off-topic room for members to offer other non-related products and services. I think rule 9 is pretty close, you might want to add some clarification to prevent the issues people had brought up with  our current itteration of the rule, though. Anyways, this was released pretty quickly, so I thank you for your contribution.

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 16:09:02

Yes, this was Jade's draft. He proposed it to the staff, and we in turn decided to make it public so that the community could have a say. We all want to make this forum better, so these proposed changes are for you all to have a look at and talk about.

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 16:11:30

These rules are clearly stated, and I like them.
The only one I don't love is rule 7. To my mind, placing a topic in the wrong board doesn't feel like an infraction. It may just be that people aren't sure where to post. I would just move the topic, make a note of it, and leave it at that, unless it started to happen purposefully and repeatedly from a particular user.
Overall, a great set of rules, that I hope will bring this forum back to civility and good-natured conversations.

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 17:22:47

Rule 7 - posting in the wrong thread - is not going to get you warned and banned unless you are deliberately overdoing it. It'll be like it is now. The rule is really only there so that people understand their responsibility to 1. try and post in the right place and 2. try to stay on topic.

Yes, I did write these. But I did bring them to the team first, and this is just a draft. You aren't being forced to agree to these rules instantly and without discussion; that's why they're here. I appreciate the feedback. Keep it coming.

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

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 17:46:47

Liam, here's how the whole warning thing works.
If you've never been banned, you lose 1 warning every 7 days. If you have been banned once or more, you lose a warning every 30 days.

Rules 5 and 6 are slightly different, in that rule 5 talks about straight-up spam and rule 6 sorta supports it. You can be guilty of breaking rule 6 without breaking rule 5, though most people who get mixed up with this will probably be falling under both.

Rule 6 is more of a catch-all, which is why it looks slippery. If there are questionable issues, it will be dealt with by more than one person so that no single individual just makes assumptions.
Rule 9 basically says "if we step in, please trust us to do our job". Such a thing needs to be there. We are never going to ask you, citing rule 9, to do things that aren't related to the situation. We are not, for instance, going to tell you to give us your password or publish a post denouncing someone. We may ask that a particular topic be calmed down, or may close a thread and ask that a given thing not be beaten to death any further. That's pretty much it.

Rule 11, by contrast, is a classic community failure clause. If you routinely get in trouble every 10 days or so, we're going to cite this as a reason to eventually step in. If you've skirted the rules in other ways or whatnot...same deal. Rule 11 is a support rule, something to be used if other specifics don't cover a situation. Again, review means that no single person is going to cite rule 11 and go "Okay, you're done here". We're going to cite it, talk amongst ourselves and come to a decision. In fact, we may, if we have to cite this rule, give sort of a one-time last warning, something which makes very clear to a user that they're on the very, very edge, and that further behaviour will tip them over.
The nature of such a clause, however, is that it's going to have some wiggle room to it. I know that may come across as wishy-washy, but in the same breath, you can't cover for every eventuality without making a ten-page document with sub-clauses all over the place. At the end of the day, you'll have to trust a little, just as we're trusting you not to see the rules and find creative and sneaky ways to sidestep them. This has to go both ways, and I feel that a strong first effort here is to publish our attempt at a new set of rules for you to engage with. As such, have on. I hope my explanation isn't striking any of you as an attempt to shut your opinions down.

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

Thumbs up +1

2018-11-06 18:30:46

Hi,
I really do think clarification of rule 6 needs to be done. Maybe make it sound less strict. For instance, I like someone like g-rad who puts somethign like artist at base mechanic records in their signature, gets to the point, doesn't provide a link but just gives a little bit of curiosity, is not a spammer either. Shares tracks in the off topic room, has shared video game music tracks in the favourite game music topic, and yet a rule like this makes me genuinely worried that people will be too scared to share their projects.

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 18:42:00 (edited by Jaseoffire 2018-11-06 18:53:43)

I understand. As far as it goes, though, the more details we can hash out now, the less chance we have of running into another headache situation later. While we don't necessarily need a ten page document with all sorts of sub-clauses, and sub-clauses to those sub-clauses, it wouldn't hurt to cover as many of the eventualities as we can now, so no one has to try to figure things out later. Sure, we can trust the Mods, and forum members to understand things now, but what of 5-10 years down the line. Things will change between now and then, and that lack of detail may become a bigger problem than, oh someone found a loophole, let's fix that. Perhaps I may be wrong here, but I'd think that fixing loopholes (especially if the community agrees that the loophole is a problem), would be easier than to try to clear things up when everyone's confused about what the heck is going on, and no one's clear on a particular ruling. It's fine to have a clause like this, just be prepared to make it more of a warning situation, and to have a plan to ammend things when it comes up. Especially if people get confused again.
(edit) Oh, yeah. Agree with Aaron here, rule 6 is really kind of a weird rule. Actually, I believe our current rules system covers this just fine where it gives specifics of what is generally not advertisable here.
(edit2) I nearly forgot. Just a nitpick at this point, but we should also add a reminder that in order to post, you must introduce yourself in the introduction topic.

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 18:48:25

I feel like 6 is meant more to discourage topics that do unsolicited advertisement.
IE.
Want to make a website to host your cat pictures? I host sites on the cheap.
Has nothing to do with games, and everything to do with self-promotion.
That being said though, there should be some room for people to share music and such, but I wonder if that could be a sub board.
I realize off topic is a share all, but I'm all for a show and Tell board that let's people share things. I dunno. I'm kinda rambling right now. Thoughts?

2018-11-06 18:56:46

I like the rules, though 6 as said needs clarification. Taken literally as written, wave goodbye to a lot of topics because they don't fall under those two criteria, books, cooking, TV, et cetera. I don't see the harm in, for instance, discussing a TV show in the off-topic room. No, it has nothing to do with accessibility. But it is something to talk about. Same for books, or cooking. I think rule 6 either needs to be relax, for example the signature example wouldnt apply, or you could discuss things like that in the of-topic room.. I do feel like if #6 is applied literally, the rule, not the post...curse ye, #signs. It cuould get a lot of people worried about posting thigs. After al. THis isn't solely an audiogames forum, as a look in the off-topic will prove. That's a more of a general talk about anything area.

If in doubt, chocolate and coffee. Enough said.

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 19:02:32 (edited by flackers 2018-11-06 22:33:57)

10 sounds like self-justification for silencing people when they aren't breaking the rules. Quote: If you do things to make the staff team think that your presence on the forum is doing more harm than good, you may be subjected to discipline greater than what you would receive for any individual breach of the rules. This could be interpreted as anyone we don't like can be banned for life with no warning. That one absolutely stinks to high heaven. As Jade is obviously calling all the shots now, I for one am very uneasy with him having access to that kind of vaguery. Aside from the recent troubles, I don't believe I've ever done anything that warrants moderation, and don't plan to. I'm smart enough to understand clear rules like don't spam or post links to cracks, but given the manner in which recent topics were closed, and threats were made, under that rule I could be banned for life just for posting hello. I do not agree to that rule. Do I need to reregister to agree to that because I wouldnt agree so where do I stand?

Thumbs up +3

2018-11-06 19:07:05

Now, I don't think that rule 11 will be a major problem right away, but it could eventually turn into a major issue if left in its current state. As for the solution, a list of some of what you've got in the definition that relates to rule 11, and a rewording of the main text might help. As for the rewording, I'm not fully sure what to go with, yet.

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 19:29:38

Rule 11 is seriously bugging me right now.
To me at leased it sounds like if a member of this forum says something against a moderators viewpoint or anything else which a moderator might not agree with, this member can be banned for not complying with the staffs, or rather, Jaides point of view as it seams right now, or why does the mod team let the newbie call the shots and play the alpha male around here.
To me, this sounds like the beginning of digtatorship and the users beeing under constant considerations of the forums staff.

Greetings Moritz.

Hömma, willze watt von mir oder wie, weil wenn nich, dann lass dir mal sagen, laber mir kein Kottlett anne Wange und hömma, wo wir gerade dabei sind, dann iss hier hängen im Schacht, sonns klapp ich dir hier die Fingernägel auf links, datt kannze mir mal glaubn.

Thumbs up +1

2018-11-06 19:31:00

I've rewritten some stuff, and hopefully this clears things up a little bit. I consolidated rules 5 and 6 into a single rule, and added some staff protocol at the end.

This should hopefully get some of the worry out of the way. Put baldly, if anyone tried citing the community failure clause the way you're worried about, Flackers, we'd ride them out on a rail. Here is a summary of how community failure is going to work in practice.

Step 1. Mod 1 says "so and so is more trouble than they're worth/dancing around the rules. I want to use community failure (rule 10) to seek further action."
Step 2. Mod 2 (and hopefully mods 3 and 4, the more the merrier) talk about it privately and determine whether or not there is merit to that request. If no, the process ends, but if yes...
Step 3: The player is told that they are being punished under rule 10, and given an explanation as to what has caused it.
Step 4: Alongside step 3, the case against the player is published in a closed thread to show players why this player is being issued harsher punishment.

So no. This is not ever going to come down to someone being banned for saying hello. It is not ever going to come down to one person deciding you're more trouble than you're worth and giving you the old heave-ho. That simply is not going to happen. Even if you (general you here) say something which makes me so blinded by rage that I want you irrevocably gone, I'm going to go to the forum mods and adminst and we're going to talk about it, and we'll hopefully agree on something suitable...or I'll be overridden, whichever is most fair. And if I went rogue and banned you in that blind rage, see staff protocol; I'd very likely lose my job for that, and your ban would be quite rightly reversed. Not gonna happen.

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

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 19:31:13

You would not be banned just for saying hello, no way. Let's say the community thinks someone is negative or keeps on disagreeing with someone or whatever, and it happens over a length of time, then and only then would rule 11 go into play, and also it would not be up to just one moderator to implement it.
I am also wondering how this could be worded in that rule as well, as I've thought about it and I don't know how to describe it.

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 19:39:27

@Aaron, so wait, just that I get this straight, if a user disagrees with a certain standpoints or many standpoints, just because he has another standpoint, this rule 11 which is now rule 10 goes into effect?
I'm sorry, but that just sounds unreasonable to me, why is it a problem that one disagrees over something with someone else having a different opinion on the matter?
Mind clearing that up possibly?

Greetings Moritz.

Hömma, willze watt von mir oder wie, weil wenn nich, dann lass dir mal sagen, laber mir kein Kottlett anne Wange und hömma, wo wir gerade dabei sind, dann iss hier hängen im Schacht, sonns klapp ich dir hier die Fingernägel auf links, datt kannze mir mal glaubn.

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 19:44:36 (edited by flackers 2018-11-06 19:52:44)

What if mods 2 and 3 aren't as dominant as mod 1, and they're a bit intimidated by him, and tend to go along with whatever he says? I know I won't be banned for saying hello. I meant it exists as a potential and demonstrates how faulty non-rules like that are. Promises that it won't be abused don't change the fact it's vague, pointless, and encourages corruption.

Thumbs up +1

2018-11-06 20:06:59

Except it doesn't, Flackers, that's what I'm trying to tell you.

Let me put it really, really bluntly. If you ever end up with a situation where one mod really can and will say "to hell with rules" and do what they want, and the rest of that team is totally in that mod's pocket, then you might have a problem. But that's true for all kinds of things. By that logic, said corrupt mod could warn you for liking the Red Sox or for being a citizen of a particular country; if nothing stops them citing falsely a clause which is there to protect a community, nothing also stops them from bludgeoning you with nonexistent rules and/or doing irrevocable damage. The vast, vast majority of people will never have that sort of power, and could never use it.
In the current climate, you are suggesting one of two possibilities.
1. I am one of the timid mods who goes along with someone corrupt. This firstly assumes there's someone corrupt on the staff, and secondly assumes I'm just going to roll with it. Look at my support for Nocturnis's post, my desire to dive into things head-first even when it may not be wise, and ask yourself if I seem timid.
2. The other scenario is that I'm the mod with the big stick and everyone else is too timid to oppose me. In this case, you seem to be implying that I would falsely cite the community failure clause to punish people I didn't like/who hadn't broken rules. If I failed to follow protocol - protocol you can now see, by the way - you'd see it. If I twisted evidence or failed to include it, you'd see it. If I didn't cite any bad behaviour and punished anyway, you'd see that too. And guess what? The many outweigh the few every time. Someone of equal or higher rank would bump me off, and I'd very likely get banned in my own right for what I did. Not gonna happen though.

This is pretty airtight, unless you think that the entire mod staff is corrupt and acting on nothing more than personal agenda. Past a certain point, there is no evidence we can offer which will prove otherwise. Trust. Remember that word. It's huge.

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

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 20:23:04

I'm still concerned.
allow me to demonstrate through examples.
6. Please place new threads in the appropriate forum, and attempt to stay on topic when posting. Warnings may be given if you blatantly hijack someone else's topic, and topics which are started in an inappropriate forum will be moved to the correct place by a moderator or administrator. A bit of wandering, as conversations change, is totally okay; just try not to yank a topic of discussion in a direction it very obviously wasn't going before without good reason. Having your post moved to a different forum is not grounds for punishment unless it is happening so often that it is deemed a deliberate nuisance.

2 issues. 1) so if I have a similar question, and my question slowly takes over the thread, is that hijacking it? 2) Try to not lead a thread where it was not meant to go. while I believe I know how this is meant to come across, this seriously worries me. so if I and someone disagree regarding something, or have an argument, or whatever, and it's still technically on topic, and it doesn't break any other rules, are we going to get warnings just because we continued that particular debate in a particular thread, getting it to change direction in the process? if that is indeed the case, I'm honestly worried.
7. We welcome users of any nationality and place of origin. While we recognize that many forum users may be unused to English, and may be most comfortable with another language, we ask that users speak English on this website, as it is the only universal language that all staff members know. If English is not your mother tongue, we will still make every effort to support you. No one should be mocked or abused due to their language choices and abilities.
Again, I'm worried. how is a none_native english speaker supposed to understand these rules in the first place? it's all good pointing out that the main lang here is english, but who's to say that they'll understand? just to give an example, apparently knowing 3000 english words, (the basic stuff, I presume) will allow you to understand around 90% of every day text. in other words, that is more than good enough to participate. but do we really think that people will understand all the other 9 rules? I'm somewhat hoping we have translators to translate the rules, after all, rules need to be understood. it's not something I would personally risk playing with.

8. When moderators or administrators do choose to step into a discussion in an official capacity, they do so because they believe it is necessary. We ask that users in such a situation follow all related instructions to the best of their ability. Staff will attempt to maintain a hands-off approach wherever we can, but in the event this is not possible, we expect your help in making sure the forum continues to run smoothly. If this occurs, we will not be asking you to break forum rules or otherwise perform distasteful actions, but we may be asking you to let a particular subject drop or to cool a topic down if it has grown too heated. We want this community to run smoothly just as much as you do.

rule 8. am I the only one who is reminded of the BSG topic? AKA do what the admin tells you. so according to this rule, if I have a disagreement with an admin, after he or she requests the topic to be closed, they can now technically issue me a warning, just because I disagreed with their choice regarding that topic. I hope these can be amended.

Thumbs up +4

2018-11-06 20:40:40

thank you braille, simba, and Flackers. You pretty much said what I was going to. After seeing the 6 pointless mod warnings going out, there is no way I could trust our current mod team with these rules. Some of them are great of course, but in particular rules 8 and 10. If we had a team that most people trusted, sure. But there were 6, at least, pointless mod warnings that went out, and while they were eventually retracted through force of utter public outrage, who's to say it won't happen again. If you all remember, there were 2 warnings the first day the should jade be a mod topic started up. No one was having it though, and jade eventually retracted one, saying that he would make sure to learn from that mistake. Accept then the next day he gave like 4 more for just as pointless or even more pointless reasons than the previous reasons. And I'm sorry to say that if jade steps out of line, considering that it has happened so many times already, I don't trust that the wrest of the mod team would do the right thing. To me those rules just seem like a roundabout way to get official permission to close topics jade disagrees with. I know I am being extremely and overly cynical here, but its honestly how I feel after seeing so many baseless warnings, retracted or otherwise. I don't want there to be a rule that gives jade the right of way to do this kind of thing within the boundaries of the rules.

I am a web designer, and a game developer. If you wish see me at http://www.samtupy.com

2018-11-06 20:51:51

Ehh, rule 10 is a bit vague to me as well but I do understand what it's trying to say.

Ironcross's ban is a nice illustration on how this issue gets started. I personally am glad he was banned, because I am of the belief that walking away from a situation is far better than giving some sort of heated response. Such things generally cause more flames than they put out. Sure, one time is okay, but Ironcross kept doing it and justifying it with an attitude that generally isn't friendly and conducive to benign disagreement. The issue I see most is that people's definition of what can be called cumulative behavior, fit for exercising the community failure clause, is so different. I wish we could all agree on it, but it is clear to me that we won't. At the end of the day we have to draw a line though, and just respectfully disagree I guess, or else we won't get anywhere. Like Jayde and other mods have been saying, trust is ultimately what will bring us together, not a set of words.

I feel there is still a strong rift between the community and mods. They still really can't trust each other and it just makes me sad. I will admit that heavy-handed moderation is scaring me a bit, and Jayde is definitely stepping up the moderation game, for better or for worse. But something had to be done and we all know it. And just remember, we all did what we thought, at the time, was best for the situations we involved ourselves in. WE argued, we debated, some of us turned up the heat for some hopefully not-too-selfish reasons, mods and members left because they felt this was just not something they could handle, I popped in and out and rambled about how we should just try to resolve this, Jayde became mod and made some mistakes but he was trying to do what would help the situation, just as we all were. I believe I said this in another thread, there is no goldilocks sollution here, it's impossible. I just hope that the best sollutions are found. I have no ill will towards Jayde or anyone else involved in this fiasco really. I am constantly reminding myself that what we all did during the crisis was not how we intend to cary ourselves in our day-to-day lives. So, once things have calmed down a bit, then I will really assess how I think things are going and decide if I like it or not. Now, I think, is too early for me to tell.

Make more of less, that way you won't make less of more!
If you like what you're reading, please give a thumbs-up.

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 20:52:47

The fact that the warnings were retracted in the firstplace, especially when I stepped in, surely, must tell you something. You know, I could have easily just backed Jayde up in that case. But I didn't. I took it to the list and I took it to multiple topics, and he relented, and this is what he's getting at. Even he realizes how harsh he was being.

Thumbs up 0