2018-11-07 06:09:54

Again. If the rule seems easy to abuse, I feel the best way to handle that is to require it to have checks and balances.I've been there for about well hell. Since the mid 0's I guess, and there were times, when it would have probably been helpful to have something mods could use to cool things down with when it got crazy.
The thing is. I actually agree with everyone here. I'd rather see a rule exist and never need it than to need it and it not exist.
But I also do see how people feel it could be abused. That however brings in to play trust and transparency. It's my hope that if action needs to be taken, the rule plus why the action was taken will always be cited.
I'm in full favor of a vote if that will ease people's mind. It's a very polarizing issue, so I'm not sure how the mod staff could best compromise on this.

2018-11-07 06:25:55

Flackers has said all that I would've said. The thing about checks and balances is that it seems like Jade is riding shotgun, if you will, and he's (so far as I can tell) getting very little opposition, if any at all, from the moderator team. If checks and balances are going to be in place, then the mods need to actually start standing up for themselves and challenge his actions and actually ask him for a well-reasoned argument of why that action needs to be taken. rule ten, for example, has never been needed and the likelihood of it actually being needed before the other rules kick in is practically null. That is why it is unnecessary. If it has never been needed since the forum began, and the likelihood of it actually being invoked would be extremely close to absolute zero, why have it at all? The rule is so easy to abuse its not even funny. Its so open to interpretation that Jade could violate or invoke it unknowingly, or deliberately violate it just because its there. The more rules you have, the more people will look to use them against someone, whether hat means a moderator or admin. There needs to be a balance between too little rules and too many, and frankly rule 10 is pointless and is unneeded.

"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 06:26:14 (edited by flackers 2018-11-07 06:37:49)

I've gone cold on the vote idea for the reason that it might be possible for some people to vote more than once.

Thumbs up

2018-11-07 06:30:05

I remember Aaron bringing up earlier about rule 10 as it is a community failure clause, whether or not we could involve the community in such instances. If it is indeed meant to be a rare use, is their a way for the community to indeed confirm whether or not they have indeed been harmed by said behavior?

Thumbs up

2018-11-07 06:38:00

Here's a thing: if this forum had no rules, you wouldn't have to look far to find spam, cracks, abuse, and all the other stuff the rules are there to prevent, so why aren't we seeing any of this behaviour talked about in 10? It's because it's not a problem.

Thumbs up

2018-11-07 06:39:07

So I'm going to throw out a hypothetical situation. Hopefully it's not this way, but let's just say it was.
Let's say there absolutely had to be a community clause. Like. No way to avoid it. Has to happen.
What would make you comfortable in such a clause.
I know Flackers mentioned the importance of all mods speaking up and Jayde not driving everything.
What else would make it more comfortable for people.

2018-11-07 06:49:26

So let me kind of boil this down to what I'm reading. Tell me if I'm missing something.
The biggest issues with Rule 10 that people are having are that.
1. It feels vague.
2. It feels redundant or superfluous.
3. It could open for abuse if the mod team is not proactive and work together.

1. I think it needs more specific language so I'm in agreement.
2. The rule is supposed to be a catch all for an unexpected situation. You can't plan for everything, and let's say something goes down that no one prepared for. It will look extremely suspect if a rule is then added after the fact.
3. This may be something that the mods need to work on amongst themselves. We do not be to see the mod's list so we have no idea how much or how little is being discussed. I do share the concerns you have that we got mixed messages about the mods discussing the rules before they were posted, but that just feels like a lack of communication more than anything else. Again. Something that has to be worked on to rebuild trust.

Just my thoughts. I'm just a guy who does stuff.

2018-11-07 07:12:04

We can totally do a vote, just not using the forum's pole system. Make a topic that users that have more than 25 posts can vote in, maybe less if that limit appears harsh. At the end of the day everyone could go threw and read the votes. Of course then it wouldn't actually be private, and people would know who voted for what, so thinking it through it could have the potential to create a lot of unneeded heat, but it's just an idea. if we can limit the amount of people that can vote more than once, it could prove to be the best solution.

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

2018-11-07 09:43:50

I'm somewhere in the middle with regard to rule 10. The wording seems a bit odd to me, and it could definitely be abused by a moderation team hell bent on abusing it. But imho we do need a rule, guideline, or clarification which in effect says, "While the rules listed above are the main forum rules, common sense should prevail. If you are considering doing something which seems outright wrong or at odds with this forum, just because this specific case isn't listed in the rules doesn't make it okay." That wording is probably way off base, but you get the idea. Another thing rule 10 probably tries to get across is something I saw on a MOO once. It said something like, "If you test our limits, or if we think you are testing our limits, you risk being punished and that is your problem, not ours."

Thumbs up

2018-11-07 12:13:08

it was post 60, or post 61, where jayde was giving examples of what would, and what would not get one a warning. now I'm worried. so according to jayde's example, I'm not allowed to come to conclusions judging by what's written in front of me? it said something along the lines of Jayde is power hungry, and so that would be classified, since that then is personally going on someone, without facts.
am I the only one seeing too many issues to even begin listing them?
if a new windows update comes out, and I say that Microsoft, those bastards are forcing me to update. technically, that could fall under the same category. if I then said, that those morons are not even giving me the option to delay upgrades on win10 home, because they're power hungry, and they want me to upgrade. the fact is, they want me to upgrade, and that there are not really official ways to delay. but according to jayde's example, I now get a warning, because I insulted, or at least, made personal remarks on a company. or let's say, I said a developer uses us, the customers, for money. which, let's be fair, has been done in the past. again, according to this example, I'm not allowed to speculate  by the information that is out in the public. am I missing the obvious, am I over reacting?

Thumbs up +1

2018-11-07 12:58:08 (edited by flackers 2018-11-07 13:00:51)

If it had been proposed by a mod who'd proved him or herself to be fair and level-headed
over a reasonable period, it wouldn't look so bad. The mod team just looks a bit rudderless at the moment. So honestly, why not just clarify the existing rules, appoint a new head admin, quietly establish some trust, then make any additions for problems that actually exist when people have faith in the team.

Thumbs up +1

2018-11-07 13:07:54

You are overreacting, yes.

Take most rules with the knowledge that we want to have a hands-off approach wherever possible. If you make one insulting post that isn't utterly trashing someone on the forum but is, for instance, expressing some anger at Microsoft, you may (key word, may) get a caution to be aware of your behaviour, but you aren't going to be slammed for it. Remember, cautions are not cumulative and they aren't punishments; they are nothing more or less than a mod stepping in and gently advising you not to get too much more heated. They will never be counted against you. We recognize that everyone gets hot under the collar sometimes, and that in those instances, things can be said which, upon reflection, shouldn't have been, or should've been said differently at least. Happens to the best of us. The forum rules are here to protect people and to stop things exploding. They are not here so we can issue warnings everywhere.

Regarding rule 10, I'm sorry but I am still convinced, even after reading what's been written, that it should be here...because if it's not, and behaviour occurs where we feel it needs to be invoked, people may get very upset if we start inventing rules. In particular here, we now have warnings proposed to expire after a short time; this is something we have tried to put in place because we feel that people who slip up should have a chance to redeem themselves. In all the furor of rule 10, I believe this fact has been overlooked by most. We now have an exploitable part of the rules, essentially, because we actually wanted to ease up on punishments, so there is quite literally now a better chance that rule 10 needs to come into effect to deal with one or more people whose behaviour is bad enough to warrant it. I'm not saying it's likely, but it's possible.

One compromise I am happy to suggest is the following:
We put rule 10, the community failure clause, in place, and we give it a trial run. If it's never cited, great; it's like Liam said, a rule meant to catch behaviour not covered by other rules. If we do use it, and there is valid grounds for suggesting that we are abusing one or more people with it, the following will occur:
1. We will either close the loophole or remove the rule, and
2.The person abused or mistreated will have their associated punishment revoked, and
3. I will resign as a mod
Yes, I will put a personal stake in this. I am so convinced that we will do this fairly, and not misuse it, that I am prepared to stake my position on the team upon its success.
Remember that we will be publishing "cases", for want of a better word, against players, so if we do have to invoke rule 10, you will know why, and you will have a record of the behaviour that caused it.
This does -NOT mean that I will resign if even one person disagrees with the ruling. What it -does mean is that we did publish a list of staff protocol, and if we have been found to abuse that with regard to rule 10, then the promised action will take place.

Many of you are wary of giving staff any power whatsoever right now. I feel that, while this is a realistic enough concern, it's being blown out of shape. In reality, this community failure clause is difficult to invoke and even more difficult to abuse. it is a last-ditch measure which only gets used when other methods aren't working or are being circumvented. It has checks to ensure that one person can't just run roughshod over the whole thing. It demonstrates proof of behaviour for the community. I am opposed to having you guys vote on whether it hurt the community because it is very, very easy to just use a vote to support a friend or to damn an opponent. Unfortunately - and I want to say this as gently as possible - the mods are not the only group who has made some slips lately. We have responsibility so ours may count for more, but I daresay many things have been said and done that probably shouldn't have been said and done, and to me, they indicate that making a community failure clause into a popularity contest is a very bad idea.

So yeah. What do you think of my compromise, letting us take the idea for a spin and seeing if your fears are actually justified? At the end of the day, it really is going to come down to trust.

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

Thumbs up +1

2018-11-07 16:42:39

So, hold on...I'm agreeing with Braille0109  here.

Let's say Sam releases a new game and I say I don't like the game because Sam messed XY Z up will I get a warning for saying Sam made mistakes then? THere's a lot of uncertainty, and things like that shouldn't be cautions. If anything I'd argue it stifles discussion and opinion.

For example. User 1 posts he likes cats
User 2 posts he likes dogs
User 3 posts saying 1 and 2 are wrong for liking cats because cats need a litter tray and dogs need walking. Technically, IF you take the rules precisely as written, TECHNICALLY that is a personal attack. HOWEVEWR there's facts (that cats need a litter tray and dogs need exercise) to back up the points. Why should user 3 get a warning?

Or let's say user 4 posts about his new Mac, User 5 possts he doesn't think user 4 should have bought a mac because they are overpriced with inferior hardware, and Apple deliberately engineers their products to be obsolete.

Taken exactly as written now, that would get a caution? Despite the fact that the claim against APple is easily proven, and widely known, it would *stll* get a warning? Something's of about it.

Or let's say, Jade, you post you support the NDP. I come along and say your belief in socialism in Canada is flawed, because, and then list reasons, with evidence and citations. Again, taken literaly, that'd fall under a personal by how personal attack rules are written.

Or, let's say I say EA is a bad company for their microtransaction in Madden. Would that get a warning? Yes, I said EA are a bad company,  but I ten turn around and cite reasons why I believe that.

Fact is, personal attacks ae, again, interpretation based rules

If in doubt, chocolate and coffee. Enough said.

Thumbs up +1

2018-11-07 16:58:52

Actually, no. I think if you reread more carefully you will find that this is not, in fact, the case. You're free to tell me that you don't support the NDP in Canada, or that an assumption I'm making about it is wrong. You're free to tell me that macs are expensive, or that if you want the best bang for your buck you should go for something else. These are not personal attacks.

Using the NDP example, a personal attack would be "You're an idiot if you support the NDP", while a criticism is "I don't think you're right to support the NDP, here's why.". See how one involves name-calling or straight-up using some sort of epithet to prove your point while the other is a clear statement of belief without rancour?

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 17:13:15

Yikes what is ranka? *laughs* I've never heard that word before and I'm a native English speaker!
I think, put simply, a lot of these rules are starting to look too strict and formally worded.
I am, also, thinking of another method that might be similar to, but not as strict or open or worrying as, as the community clause, but I don't know if it will need Sendermen to implement or if we as admins could also do this outright.
I briefly discussed this a few weeks back on the mod list but with all the stuff going on, it might have been overlooked.
Instead of a community clause, create what would effectively be an emergency moderated group that only admins (read: me and also, Arqmeister) can add to. If someone is in this group, they are essentially still members, but their rank is removed, their warnings reset, and they gain the title "emergency moderated" and have one or two more chances to act before a ban could be invoked, one warn or bust, essentially, for a time, or, depending on what people think, possibly no extra warning (although I don't know if i'd be too happy with that). This way if someone keeps on starting flame wars and it always ends up being the same people involved in them, we can say right, you keep on starting drama here (not disagreement, but proper drama and anger and negativity and upsetting the community) because of this we're putting you into the emergency moderated group, the users in the group can still enjoy and post on the forums, and after they've cooled off, they get put back as members. If a mod gets put in the group, their mod powers are removed as well, so if we're finding Jayde's being too heavy handed at the wrong time, then emergency moderated he goes. Once again, this would just be an admin-based thing, so only me and also Arqmeister would have any real power over this group, yet, for instance Jayde could still suggest people who should be put in there, but we admins would have the final say and would have to make the actual call. This way, even if three mods agree but the admins don't, literally nothing can be done and I feel like it's a bit more foolproof.
This is, essentially the same thing as community clause accept admins have to make the final judgement to begin the process, and even then, it's not an instant ban of a user it's only if flames really start to burn high and repeatedly burn high would we even consider invoking any sort of community failure clause.
As for disagreements, @Jayde I have to agree with these guys here it looks too formal and scary at the moment. I would be happy to propose my own draft of the rules but that is not going to be happening on this very Wednesday, Friday would be the most likely day because I've got the whole day free and can spend time working on it, even though it won't take too long to do, I feel like I need to get my act together for this.
I noticed that these days websites seem to do simple privacy policies and to a lesser extend terms of service, and they use much more natural and less formal language, although I still think the rules will have to look a little formal.
What do you guys think? Should I try proposing my own rules draft too, at some point?

Thumbs up

2018-11-07 17:18:25

Aaron, I understand what you're saying about rules and formality and all, but I'm afraid I just don't agree. Many sites actually use far more complex language than we're using here. I think this is, for instance, far simpler than my post about trying to start the healing process; that, admittedly, was quite dense and carefully worded. These rules are not nearly so difficult to parse, at least not in comparison to other places.

And regarding your idea, it's virtually the same as the community failure clause, except instead of all staff having access, only admins do. If people think there is a chance that the community failure clause goes off the rails, they are apt to think it doubly bad if there's just admin making decisions on that score.

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 17:29:38 (edited by Ethin 2018-11-07 17:32:26)

Jade is correct that most sites are far more strict in the language department; however, the comparison doesn't really work. Take the following source, from a document similar to the rules, called a 'Terms of Service'/'Terms of use':

(e) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES
You may not access or use the Site for any purpose other than that for which we make the Site available. The Site may not be used in connection with any commercial endeavors except those that are specifically endorsed or approved by us.
As a user of the Site, you agree not to:
(i) Systematically retrieve data or other content from the Site to create or compile, directly or indirectly, a collection, compilation, database, or directory without written permission from us;
(ii) Make any unauthorized use of the Site, including collecting usernames and/or email addresses of users by electronic or other means for the purpose of sending unsolicited email, or creating user accounts by automated means or under false pretenses;
(iii) Use the Site to advertise or offer to sell goods and services, unless explicitly authorized;
(iv) Circumvent, disable, or otherwise interfere with security-related features of the Site, including features that prevent or restrict the use or copying of any Content or enforce limitations on the use of the Site and/or the Content contained therein;
(v) Engage in unauthorized framing of or linking to the Site;
(vi) Trick, defraud, or mislead us and other users, especially in any attempt to learn sensitive account information such as user passwords;
(vii) Make improper use of our support services or submit false reports of abuse or misconduct;
(viii) Interfere with, disrupt, or create an undue burden on the Site or the networks or services connected to the Site;
(ix) Attempt to impersonate another user or person or use the username of another user;
(x) Sell or otherwise transfer your profile;
(xi) Use any information obtained from the Site in order to harass, abuse, or harm another person;
(xii) Use the Site as part of any effort to compete with us or otherwise use the Site and/or the Content for any revenue-generating endeavor or commercial enterprise;
(xiii) Decipher, decompile, disassemble, or reverse engineer any of the software comprising or in any way making up a part of the Site;
(xiv) Attempt to bypass any measures of the Site designed to prevent or restrict access to the Site, or any portion of the Site;
(xv) Harass, annoy, intimidate, or threaten any of our employees or agents engaged in providing any portion of the Site to you;
(xvi) Delete the copyright or other proprietary rights notice from any Content;
(xvii) Copy or adapt the Site’s software, including but not limited to Flash, PHP, HTML, JavaScript, or other code;
(xviii) Upload or transmit (or attempt to upload or to transmit) viruses, Trojan horses, or other material, including excessive use of capital letters and spamming (continuous posting of repetitive text), that interferes with any party’s uninterrupted use and enjoyment of the Site or modifies, impairs, disrupts, alters, or interferes with the use, features, functions, operation, or maintenance of the Site;
(xix) Upload or transmit (or attempt to upload or to transmit) any material that acts as a passive or active information collection or transmission mechanism, including without limitation, clear graphics interchange formats (“gifs”), 1×1 pixels, web bugs, cookies, or other similar devices (sometimes referred to as “spyware” or “passive collection mechanisms” or “pcms”);
(xx) Except as may be the result of standard search engine or Internet browser usage, use, launch, develop, or distribute any automated system, including without limitation, any spider, robot, cheat utility, scraper, or offline reader that accesses the Site, or using or launching any unauthorized script or other software;
(xxi) Disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site; or
(xxii) Use the Site in a manner inconsistent with any applicable laws or regulations.

In contrast to this, rule 10 is quite loose. However, for a forum like this, a TOS is probably not entirely necessary (though I'd argue that a TOS is necessary anywhere). Either way, I am still of the opinion that rule 10 is very unclear what qualifies as what, and it is still interpretive: Jades definition of a "Unofficial Caution" (which is a term I have never seen used on any forum in a moderation capacity until now, leading me to consider it improper language for a forum of all things) may be different from what the community as a whole considers a caution. By the way, community does mean the entire forum, correct? The rules do state multiple times the term "community".

"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 17:49:25

A caution is literally just a note from a staff member that they have seen your behaviour, and while it's not bad enough for a warning and won't hurt you at this point, escalating further/continuing the same thing much more may result in a warning. Basically, it's like those 2d platformers where when you step near the edge of a pit, you hear the ground crumble. No harm done yet, but keep going and you're apt to take a fall.

Ethin's example is precisely my point. We do not need rules that harsh - and I daresay if I'd tried that, you folks would have rightfully gotten very angry, just look at all the clauses and the breadth of power afforded by that site's administration - but I think being clear is a good thing.

I still stand by the offer. Let us do this community failure thing. Give us rope. And I will personally stand accountable if it's ever abused.

About to go try and tweak the rules one more time, by the way.

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 17:51:30

Hi Jayde,
I am wondering if putting the platformer analogy might help. I also can't think of any more game analogies to help with other rules though.

Thumbs up

2018-11-07 18:04:15

Please don't put analogies in a set of rules. Looks silly, and is just. I dunno. unprofessional?

2018-11-07 18:12:44

Agreed, it was just an example. It wouldn't be a good idea to implement game analogies for everything.

Thumbs up

2018-11-07 18:30:08

Aaron. First you say.

aaron wrote:

Hi Jayde,
I am wondering if putting the platformer analogy might help. I also can't think of any more game analogies to help with other rules though.

Then you say.

aaron wrote:

Agreed, it was just an example. It wouldn't be a good idea to implement game analogies for everything.

These statements are completely contradictory.
You can not have it both ways. I find this very concerning as I am curious what if any dialogue has actually been going on behind the scenes.

2018-11-07 18:43:22

@93, that's the thing, that site was a site I run, but that site is not a forum -- its more along the lines of a social network. Granted, I do need to do some serious revamping of the site and all that, but there is a massive difference between a forum and a social network. You think that's bad? Reddit has a terms of service -- https://www.redditinc.com/policies -- that says:

6. Things You Cannot Do
When accessing or using the Services, you must respect others and their rights, including by following these Terms and the Content Policy, so that we all may continue to use and enjoy the Services. We support the responsible reporting of security vulnerabilities. To report a security issue, please send an email to [email protected]
When accessing or using our Services, you will not:
• Create or submit Content that violates our Content Policy or attempt to circumvent any content-filtering techniques we use;
• Use the Services to violate applicable law or infringe any person or entity's intellectual property or any other proprietary rights;
• Attempt to gain unauthorized access to another user’s Account or to the Services (or to other computer systems or networks connected to or used together with the Services);
• Upload, transmit, or distribute to or through the Services any computer viruses, worms, or other software intended to interfere with the intended operation of a computer system or data;
• Use the Services to harvest, collect, gather or assemble information or data regarding the Services or users of the Services except as permitted in these Terms or in a separate agreement with Reddit;
• Use the Services in any manner that could interfere with, disrupt, negatively affect, or inhibit other users from fully enjoying the Services or that could damage, disable, overburden, or impair the functioning of the Services in any manner;
• Intentionally negate any user's actions to delete or edit their Content on the Services; or
• Access, query, or search the Services with any automated system, other than through our published interfaces and pursuant to their applicable terms. However, we conditionally grant permission to crawl the Services for the sole purpose of and solely to the extent necessary for creating publicly available searchable indices of the materials subject to the parameters set forth in our robots.txt file.

This pretty much says what my quote in 92 said, only in less verbose wording.

"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 18:55:21

A dialogue has started behind the scenes indeed about my recent posts in here, and I have apologized to the mods, and I apologize to you guys now as, indeed it did look contradictory.
It makes me realize I need to check and double check my posts and also the longer posts behind the scenes.
As it now stands:
I have read the tweaked rules and they do make a lot more sense. Be polite when disagreeing with each other is the main takeaway here, along with the community clause needing multiple staff to intervene.

Thumbs up

2018-11-07 19:10:15

Why can't we change the community clause invocation requirements to require a quorum? and to also require approval by at least one admin? That seems like the most foolproof logical step right now.

"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