Remember me
[Forgot password?] [Register]
[Login]
menu

SITE RULES *

<< First < Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next > Last >>

[Reply] #21
02-22-2014 02:14 PM
Joined: 04-19-2013
Posts: 3,802
offline
World Order
World Order
UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 45

monster lord member wrote: Is a minor flirting with another minor allowed?

obviously. Do you not see the gay sh** that hapoens on this site


__________________

[Reply] #22
02-22-2014 02:20 PM
Joined: 02-24-2007
Posts: 16,318
offline
xR
xR
Pyrrhic
Rep: 107

monster lord member wrote: Is a minor flirting with another minor allowed?



I think you should change your signature or turn off that effect.

Which brings up another point;

23 - Pictures/avatars/signatures/userpages/usernames/PMs)
Any and all rules regarding post content applies to posted pictures, avatars, signatures, userpages, usernames, and private messages where applicable, including any visual and written content in any of the locations and any content that may break the layout/design of the site. If a posted picture (whether it be via a post or in a signature/avatar shall be deleted if it can potentially cause health concerns (such as headaches, migraines, hallucinations, retinal damage &c.), the user will be dealt with accordingly.
Typical actions: Account renames, userpage erasure, signature/avatar moderation/deletion; see typical actions in other rules


__________________

“Character is what you are in the dark."
—Lord John Whorfin

[Reply] #23
02-22-2014 02:21 PM
Joined: 04-01-2007
Posts: 20,050
offline
-Tyreaus-
-Tyreaus-
•¦|[The Author]|¦•
Rep: 182

monster lord member wrote: Is a minor flirting with another minor allowed?



On principle of the rule, I am going to say “no”. However, as was previously mentioned, admins cannot see what happens in PMs unless they are explicitly shown.

God Kenpachi wrote: Ban gay flirting.



If both people are of age and neither of the parties has an issue with it, no.


__________________

The Golden Serpent

[Reply] #24
02-22-2014 02:22 PM
Joined: 12-08-2012
Posts: 18,796
offline
Spector
Spector
Hello
Rep: 176

God Kenpachi wrote: Ban gay flirting.



What’s the difference between flirting and gay flirting?


__________________

[Reply] #25
02-22-2014 02:24 PM
Joined: 04-01-2007
Posts: 20,050
offline
-Tyreaus-
-Tyreaus-
•¦|[The Author]|¦•
Rep: 182

Athena wrote:

monster lord member wrote: Is a minor flirting with another minor allowed?



I think you should change your signature or turn off that effect.

Which brings up another point;

23 - Pictures/avatars/signatures/userpages/usernames/PMs)
Any and all rules regarding post content applies to posted pictures, avatars, signatures, userpages, usernames, and private messages where applicable, including any visual and written content in any of the locations and any content that may break the layout/design of the site. If a posted picture (whether it be via a post or in a signature/avatar shall be deleted if it can potentially cause health concerns (such as headaches, migraines, hallucinations, retinal damage &c.), the user will be dealt with accordingly.
Typical actions: Account renames, userpage erasure, signature/avatar moderation/deletion; see typical actions in other rules



Attempting to discern what would/wouldn’t cause health issues of that sort is virtually impossible without a list of things, and I imagine that list being ridiculously extensive. I wold much sooner advise a person who may have those types of health issues to turn off signatures before I would ban it outright.

However, in that breath, I will likely add something regarding seizure warning pictures, seeing as how that is typically a norm elsewhere.


__________________

The Golden Serpent

[Reply] #26
02-22-2014 02:30 PM
Joined: 02-24-2007
Posts: 16,318
offline
xR
xR
Pyrrhic
Rep: 107

Actually it is quite easy. The test would be from discomfort- if you can’t look at the picture comfortably for more than a minute, it should be deemed unacceptable to be posted.


__________________

“Character is what you are in the dark."
—Lord John Whorfin

[Reply] #27
02-22-2014 02:33 PM
Joined: 04-01-2007
Posts: 20,050
offline
-Tyreaus-
-Tyreaus-
•¦|[The Author]|¦•
Rep: 182

Athena wrote: Actually it is quite easy. The test would be from discomfort- if you can’t look at the picture comfortably for more than a minute, it should be deemed unacceptable to be posted.



That makes the rule fully subjective - one person may be able to tolerate it for a minute, while others may not, and vice versa for images that may otherwise be considered benign - and that is something I have been trying to eliminate.


__________________

The Golden Serpent

[Reply] #28
02-22-2014 02:37 PM
Joined: 02-24-2007
Posts: 16,318
offline
xR
xR
Pyrrhic
Rep: 107

Yes, this list is to narrow the subjective aspect of moderating. However - health concerns are by far more important than hacking the site or hurting somebodies feelings. We need to somehow incorporate health concerns in the rule set. More so than just seizures, retinal damage is an extremely common health concern that is not regulated or brought to media attention enough. Pictures that cause even slight hallucinations can be very dangerous..

Retina damage
Change in colour perception
Blurred Vision
Headaches & Migraines
Straining the eyes (which could potentially exacerbate existing eye conditions)
Triggering seizures & strokes

Serious stuff.


__________________

“Character is what you are in the dark."
—Lord John Whorfin

[Reply] #29
02-22-2014 02:38 PM
Joined: 10-12-2012
Posts: 15,431
offline
Cirno
Cirno
Souls is life. ➈
Rep: 172

#3 should really have a max length of a permanent ban.

Otherwise good job making these guidelines. ^^


__________________


Mahou Sensou best anime ever.

[Reply] #30
02-22-2014 02:39 PM
Joined: 02-02-2014
Posts: 1,879
offline
Paris
Paris
UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 74

No gifs like these for sure.


__________________

[Reply] #31
02-22-2014 02:44 PM
Joined: 07-24-2012
Posts: 36,102
offline
The Dan Hibiki
The Dan Hibiki
Addict (beyond 1337)
Rep: 231

Macklemore wrote: No gifs like these for sure.

Unless they are Party Hard gifs


__________________

“Ayyyyyyyy”



Saint Jimmy wrote: Adults get emotional to the point where they break the rules and get banned from the forum they had 10k+ posts on.

[Reply] #32
02-22-2014 02:45 PM
Joined: 02-02-2014
Posts: 1,879
offline
Paris
Paris
UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 74

Why artistic nudity for sculptures isn’t allowed I’ll never know. Why must you hyperlink and put a warning on things you could see in Middle school to High school? It’s purely artistic and shouldnt carry any negative pornographic connotation.


__________________

Edited 02-22-2014 02:46 PM by Paris
[Reply] #33
02-22-2014 02:47 PM
Joined: 04-01-2007
Posts: 20,050
offline
-Tyreaus-
-Tyreaus-
•¦|[The Author]|¦•
Rep: 182

Athena wrote: Yes, this list is to narrow the subjective aspect of moderating. However - health concerns are by far more important than hacking the site or hurting somebodies feelings. We need to somehow incorporate health concerns in the rule set. More so than just seizures, retinal damage is an extremely common health concern that is not regulated or brought to media attention enough. Pictures that cause even slight hallucinations can be very dangerous..

Retina damage
Change in colour perception
Blurred Vision
Headaches & Migraines
Straining the eyes (which could potentially exacerbate existing eye conditions)
Triggering seizures & strokes

Serious stuff.



The only option I have that would still remove the subjectivity of the rule would be to disallow images entirely, and that seems more than a bit draconian. Admins would have no way of knowing if an apparently benign image could cause some health issue. And, in addition, people need to take their own precautions: reading lengths of text without breaks may also cause eye strain, but that seems like a poor justification for forcing people to post responses under a particular word count.

@ Sylvanas: The typical actions are typical moderator responses. There may be atypical situations that call for a permanent ban (as can be the case in any of the rules), but I felt that the typical breadth lie within that span.


__________________

The Golden Serpent

[Reply] #34
02-22-2014 02:51 PM
Joined: 02-24-2007
Posts: 16,318
offline
xR
xR
Pyrrhic
Rep: 107

people need to take their own precautions: reading lengths of text without breaks may also cause eye strain, but that seems like a poor justification for forcing people to post responses under a particular word count.



This is true, but this is up to them to take their own precautions. Looking at a Hallucination photo/gif’s is slightly inevitable especially when it is in somebodies signature.

Something like this;

“Hallucination imagery is not acceptable and will be removed immediately and all involved with the imagery will be prosecuted (this includes users who quote posts without removing the image). “


__________________

“Character is what you are in the dark."
—Lord John Whorfin

Edited 02-22-2014 02:57 PM by xR
[Reply] #35
02-22-2014 02:52 PM
Joined: 04-01-2007
Posts: 20,050
offline
-Tyreaus-
-Tyreaus-
•¦|[The Author]|¦•
Rep: 182

Macklemore wrote: Why artistic nudity for sculptures isn’t allowed I’ll never know. Why must you hyperlink and put a warning on things you could see in Middle school to High school? It’s purely artistic and shouldnt carry any negative pornographic connotation.



It’s largely a precaution, especially with user-posted content. Sculptures are one thing, but an oil painting of a nude couple is ever so slightly different: despite both being classified as artistic nudity, one tends to be seen as more acceptable due to historical significance. And a rule that can encapsulate both with maximal allowance and minimal effort on part of the user isn’t easy: it’s the best I could do short of disallowing nudity entirely.


__________________

The Golden Serpent

[Reply] #36
02-22-2014 02:52 PM
Joined: 07-24-2012
Posts: 36,102
offline
The Dan Hibiki
The Dan Hibiki
Addict (beyond 1337)
Rep: 231

Macklemore wrote: Why artistic nudity for sculptures isn’t allowed I’ll never know. Why must you hyperlink and put a warning on things you could see in Middle school to High school? It’s purely artistic and shouldnt carry any negative pornographic connotation.

I’ve addressed this before, the general consensus was that if you’re posting a painting from a well known classical artist, people can usually overlook a few exposed breasts and behinds.


__________________

“Ayyyyyyyy”



Saint Jimmy wrote: Adults get emotional to the point where they break the rules and get banned from the forum they had 10k+ posts on.

[Reply] #37
02-22-2014 03:02 PM
Joined: 04-01-2007
Posts: 20,050
offline
-Tyreaus-
-Tyreaus-
•¦|[The Author]|¦•
Rep: 182

Athena wrote:

people need to take their own precautions: reading lengths of text without breaks may also cause eye strain, but that seems like a poor justification for forcing people to post responses under a particular word count.



This is true, but this is up to them to take their own precautions. Looking at a Hallucination photo/gif’s is slightly inventible especially when it is in somebodies signature.



There is the option in a userpage to turn off images. And, again, it returns to the issue of subjectivity: do I just have it such that users can say what image provokes hallucinations, where the admins have to take that person’s word for it? Or, worse yet, that the admins have to essentially guess what ones could cause issues? Both are highly subject to abuse and mistakes, as many of the admins - myself included - have no idea what kind of less-known images could still cause those types of issues.

And then take the logic of that and apply it elsewhere. What of images that cause people nightmares and mental stress but that would otherwise be considered benign? What of trolling and flaming at all? What of people who end up bullied on here who might be suffering from bullying in real life, and the bullying here worsens that? Should that mean flaming and conflict such as that be disallowed as well? The principle (maintaining health) would be virtually identical and those types of issues, likewise, as inevitable as looking at someone’s signature. Just look at the various stress-related episodes that have occurred among administrators. There are a lot of things that would have to be barred or more severely restricted under that type of principle, many of which would end up on a subjective level due to the implausibility/difficulty in establishing an objective measure of those types of things.


__________________

The Golden Serpent

[Reply] #38
02-22-2014 03:10 PM
Joined: 02-24-2007
Posts: 16,318
offline
xR
xR
Pyrrhic
Rep: 107

So in short, its not a good idea to delete hallucination imagery because there is not an objective nature to it?

We should make those with eye conditions turn off all images on the site and tread carefully through the forums?


__________________

“Character is what you are in the dark."
—Lord John Whorfin

[Reply] #39
02-22-2014 03:16 PM
Joined: 04-01-2007
Posts: 20,050
offline
-Tyreaus-
-Tyreaus-
•¦|[The Author]|¦•
Rep: 182

Athena wrote: So in short, its not a good idea to delete hallucination imagery because there is not an objective nature to it?

We should make those with eye conditions turn off all images on the site and tread carefully through the forums?



What content does/does not generate hallucinations? Does your avatar? If somebody says it does, I would have to take that person’s word for it, despite my own immunity towards that issue.

Then, for the sake of maintaining people’s health both mental and physical, we should apply similar rules for post content. Would that mean someone who becomes deeply disturbed by swearing or conflict can ask to have all conflict or swearing in a thread stopped immediately? What if that were applied to the religion section by religious people who become unhealthily fanatical in response to religious debates? Perhaps that isn’t a legitimate medical issue, but seeing as how the administrators here are not doctors (I believe Tigger is in some type of legal/office work, and Tipper and I are both in computer science), we would have no idea to the contrary.

The alternative is that we apply it to just hallucinatory images with no justification separating that and other health issues (at least the seizure warning concept is blatant and more objective: flashy lights equals potential seizures and most often headaches).


__________________

The Golden Serpent

[Reply] #40
02-22-2014 03:23 PM
Joined: 01-31-2008
Posts: 55,431
offline
Xehanort the Younger
Xehanort the Younger
Not the bald one
Rep: 344

-Tyreaus- wrote:

Athena wrote: So in short, its not a good idea to delete hallucination imagery because there is not an objective nature to it?

We should make those with eye conditions turn off all images on the site and tread carefully through the forums?



What content does/does not generate hallucinations? Does your avatar? If somebody says it does, I would have to take that person’s word for it, despite my own immunity towards that issue.

Then, for the sake of maintaining people’s health both mental and physical, we should apply similar rules for post content. Would that mean someone who becomes deeply disturbed by swearing or conflict can ask to have all conflict or swearing in a thread stopped immediately? What if that were applied to the religion section by religious people who become unhealthily fanatical in response to religious debates? Perhaps that isn’t a legitimate medical issue, but seeing as how the administrators here are not doctors (I believe Tigger is in some type of legal/office work, and Tipper and I are both in computer science), we would have no idea to the contrary.

The alternative is that we apply it to just hallucinatory images with no justification separating that and other health issues (at least the seizure warning concept is blatant and more objective: flashy lights equals potential seizures and most often headaches).



I’d probably also add that it’s not the admins' job to be their nanny. If you have a health issue or something like that runs in your family, the user should take precaution for that before the admins do anything.

<< First < Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next > Last >>

New Reply
Name (guest):

For faster posting and no restrictions: [Login] [Register]

Message:


 
 

[More Options] [New Topic]
Moderated by: Phobetius, Zeroextra, - FS -, Admins, Superusers [All moderators]
The Lounge Forums ©Silicon.dk ApS 2012 - Privacy Policy - Disclaimer - FAQ - Contact