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

SITE RULES *

<< First < Prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next > Last >>

[Reply] #81
02-22-2014 04:50 PM
Joined: 04-01-2007
Posts: 20,050
offline
-Tyreaus-
-Tyreaus-
|[The Author]|
Rep: 182

Athena wrote:

TiggerLover wrote: Besides, as I mentioned in my PM to you, the rules have to be approved by Bjarne before we make them official in any case. He may want to make changes himself.



Nah, he isn’t a member of the site. He just owns it, this should be a democracy. He isn’t active enough to be relied on.

When he does come around, if he doesn’t like it -- fine. But for now, I think this should be implanted with all the active admins approvals.



On that note, I want to make this official:

BJARNE

Love you bro.

You do a good job on the design parts of the site (IMO), but you’re not around for the political stuff. That’s fine, keep doing the good work with all the stuff that you do so far. But somebody’s gotta take care of the politics.

I’m not trying to step on your toes or anything. I’m just trying to make it so that you don’t have to carry so much crap (a job, life, design parts, and the political BS). If you don’t like the things I’m doing, you’ve got the steel-toed boot, you can kick me out. I don’t mind, I’m just trying to help. Hope you understand and all.

~Ty


__________________

The Golden Serpent

Edited 02-22-2014 04:52 PM by -Tyreaus-
[Reply] #82
02-22-2014 09:02 PM
Joined: 08-05-2010
Posts: 27,699
offline
-Sheko-
-Sheko-
science bitch!
Rep: 270

-Tyreaus- wrote:

Based Sheko wrote: 5 and 26 are too police-state. Everything else seems fine.



5 just has the “1 swear per line” concept to sort of act as a quantifiable measure of “how much is too much”. I’ve offered previously to up this ratio, but it’s mostly put in for a mutually understandable measure between admins and members (that way, the members can understand the admins aren’t just being stuck up - it’s a definable rule the members can measure themselves). There’s typically more of an emphasis on that one to warn people about swearing and a much smaller emphasis on banning (note how the bans are in the hour ranges).

26 is sort of on the same principle of 5 regarding leniency. At the same time, blatantly refusing to follow the rules after being warned turns the offender from someone who simply didn’t know or remember the rule to someone who’s blatantly disobeying it. As for the insulting an admin half of the deal, attacking police is a real-life law, and that just acts as a Moviecodec parallel.

EDIT: The code of conduct will define what types of actions are and aren’t permissible in terms of Rule 26, so it will effectively elaborate on that rule. That’s why this hasn’t been made official.


5 is just kind of a silly thing to make a rule about. As Chibi already pointed out, it’s not really a problem to begin with and if you make a rule like that you will draw attention to it.

26 is kind of pointless too because the admins and moderators are already protected by the rules just like everyone knows. They/we don’t need a special rule to protect themselves. Not to mention that most members understand that if you mess with an admin/mod enough and they’ll get some of that 'mod discretion'. If you put this in writing, you’re going to spark a shit ton of discussions on what is considered disrespectful, especially with more sensitive admins/mods.

[Reply] #83
02-22-2014 09:03 PM
Joined: 06-27-2013
Posts: 21,550
offline
Nerd
Nerd
I am become White Male, Trigger of SJW's
Rep: 253

I love dat “mod discretion”.


__________________

Rayddit wrote: You found a Tumblr post about how a brave transgender feminist WoC made a white male cishet check his privilege? I still get aroused every time I think about how that happened in real life.

Your Facebook newsfeed tells a tale of how a newly enlightened 15-year-old Atheist put that stupid fundie in their place? My girlfriend who you haven’t met because she goes to a different school totally saw it happen and verified it for me.

Edited 02-22-2014 09:03 PM by Nerd
[Reply] #84
02-22-2014 09:07 PM
Joined: 02-02-2014
Posts: 1,879
offline
Paris
Paris
UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 74

Let’s spark a debate on what’s disrespectful..


__________________

[Reply] #85
02-22-2014 09:16 PM
Joined: 04-01-2007
Posts: 20,050
offline
-Tyreaus-
-Tyreaus-
|[The Author]|
Rep: 182

Based Sheko wrote:

-Tyreaus- wrote:

Based Sheko wrote: 5 and 26 are too police-state. Everything else seems fine.



5 just has the “1 swear per line” concept to sort of act as a quantifiable measure of “how much is too much”. I’ve offered previously to up this ratio, but it’s mostly put in for a mutually understandable measure between admins and members (that way, the members can understand the admins aren’t just being stuck up - it’s a definable rule the members can measure themselves). There’s typically more of an emphasis on that one to warn people about swearing and a much smaller emphasis on banning (note how the bans are in the hour ranges).

26 is sort of on the same principle of 5 regarding leniency. At the same time, blatantly refusing to follow the rules after being warned turns the offender from someone who simply didn’t know or remember the rule to someone who’s blatantly disobeying it. As for the insulting an admin half of the deal, attacking police is a real-life law, and that just acts as a Moviecodec parallel.

EDIT: The code of conduct will define what types of actions are and aren’t permissible in terms of Rule 26, so it will effectively elaborate on that rule. That’s why this hasn’t been made official.


5 is just kind of a silly thing to make a rule about. As Chibi already pointed out, it’s not really a problem to begin with and if you make a rule like that you will draw attention to it.

26 is kind of pointless too because the admins and moderators are already protected by the rules just like everyone knows. They/we don’t need a special rule to protect themselves. Not to mention that most members understand that if you mess with an admin/mod enough and they’ll get some of that 'mod discretion'. If you put this in writing, you’re going to spark a shit ton of discussions on what is considered disrespectful, especially with more sensitive admins/mods.



Bjarne has had a rule on swearing in the original ruleset since I can remember, and this update was based off that original set. It may be redundant to a degree, but it actually puts it out there that there actually is an in-writing regulation, rather than administrator/moderator whims.

As for the moderator/admin portion, it falls under the same type of thing. It puts it out there that there is a rule against that type of behaviour and it isn’t just a moderator’s whim that causes a “fuck the rules”-type post to be deleted.

It might be a bit (read: really) redundant, but it is supposed to work in conjunction with a defined code of conduct that should make moderators and such more accountable and eliminate enforcing rules that don’t really exist. And I would much rather have redundancy than more holes in the rules than in Swiss cheese. The moderators shouldn’t be able to permanently ban somebody for posting only one inflammatory post and the members shouldn’t have the ability to post pornography through some loophole or another (as extreme examples in the same principle).

EDIT: either way, slipped out the wording that might potentially lead to admins using their power for more personal matters. It’s still in effect for blatant “fuck the rules” posts made when a staff member makes warnings (e.g. to get back on topic).


__________________

The Golden Serpent

Edited 02-22-2014 09:20 PM by -Tyreaus-
[Reply] #86
02-22-2014 09:36 PM
Joined: 08-05-2010
Posts: 27,699
offline
-Sheko-
-Sheko-
science bitch!
Rep: 270

I’m not even being a dick when I say this, but I’m really not sure what your point is right now.

You say you want more thing written down but you also want admins/mods to be more accountable. Well more rules like these give admins/mods the ability to be less accountable. For a example an admin/mod gets a bad taste for a member and now can ban for excessive profanity(which is much different than excessive flaming) and 'disrespect'.

That’s a lot more that can fall under mod discretion. I believe we need to move towards more of a mediation philosophy, not more ways to slap users on the wrist.

[Reply] #87
02-22-2014 09:42 PM
Joined: 01-06-2006
Posts: 82,324
offline
See You Space Cowboy
See You Space Cowboy
You're Gonna Carry That Weight
Rep: 401

Looks great to me. It’s what the rules should have been since day one.

[Reply] #88
02-22-2014 09:45 PM
Joined: 04-01-2007
Posts: 20,050
offline
-Tyreaus-
-Tyreaus-
|[The Author]|
Rep: 182

Based Sheko wrote: I’m not even being a dick when I say this, but I’m really not sure what your point is right now.

You say you want more thing written down but you also want admins/mods to be more accountable. Well more rules like these give admins/mods the ability to be less accountable. For a example an admin/mod gets a bad taste for a member and now can ban for excessive profanity(which is much different than excessive flaming) and 'disrespect'.

That’s a lot more that can fall under mod discretion. I believe we need to move towards more of a mediation philosophy, not more ways to slap users on the wrist.



The way rule 5 is written provides the basic criteria for a rule infraction to exist in the first place. If the criteria doesn’t exist with whatever post, the staff member in question isn’t supposed to do anything about it.
The “typical actions” segments also escalate, e.g. a warning must be given out and disobeyed before post moderation can occur, and so on. It prevents a new user from being slapped with a week ban for swearing just a little too much.
The moderators will also have a formally written Code of Conduct that, if breached, leads pretty much immediately to their demotion. Currently, there isn’t any way for me to do that with admins directly, but that can be used as a basis for members to show a bad admin out the door by proxy via Bjarne.

The fact that a lot of that stuff relies on the code of conduct and its wording is why I haven’t just gone and made this thing official, or whatever. This basically makes users more accountable, but it doesn’t work any better than the current rule set without a mirror document making admins accountable as well.

EDIT: Also, lack of dicketry noted. o-O


__________________

The Golden Serpent

Edited 02-22-2014 09:50 PM by -Tyreaus-
[Reply] #89
02-22-2014 09:57 PM
Joined: 08-05-2010
Posts: 27,699
offline
-Sheko-
-Sheko-
science bitch!
Rep: 270

So if I’m following correctly, there will be more rules that a mod can enforce, but a mod can be put in check with their own set of guidelines that are still in the works?

[Reply] #90
02-22-2014 10:01 PM
Joined: 04-01-2007
Posts: 20,050
offline
-Tyreaus-
-Tyreaus-
|[The Author]|
Rep: 182

Based Sheko wrote: So if I’m following correctly, there will be more rules that a mod can enforce, but a mod can be put in check with their own set of guidelines that are still in the works?



Pretty much - although to be clear, the rules listed on P1 are WYSIWYG: I don’t really have plans to add anything else unless Bjarne specifically asks for it.

(As an aside, I also have a MacGuyver’d warning record in mind that will list warnings in ban records, so that might help some grey areas in that regard.)


__________________

The Golden Serpent

Edited 02-22-2014 10:02 PM by -Tyreaus-
[Reply] #91
02-22-2014 10:04 PM
Joined: 08-05-2010
Posts: 27,699
offline
-Sheko-
-Sheko-
science bitch!
Rep: 270

Alright, sounds like things could get a bit complicated. Hmm.

[Reply] #92
02-22-2014 10:12 PM
Joined: 04-01-2007
Posts: 20,050
offline
-Tyreaus-
-Tyreaus-
|[The Author]|
Rep: 182

Based Sheko wrote: Alright, sounds like things could get a bit complicated. Hmm.



What I have in mind for the CoC is largely “don’t be a dick, do your job the best you can, if you miss things no big deal, but don’t ignore what’s right in front of your face”. Oh, and “here’s how you record warnings, here’s how you check a user’s IP (admins only), here’s a few other tips”. And yeah, the instant demotion thing was a bit hyperbole. >>

In practice, I don’t expect a huge change overnight, but it should maybe hopefully kind of start along a better path, possibly. Clearer rules, codes of conduct for mods to improve and standardize their practices to avoid inconsistencies, yadda-yadda.


__________________

The Golden Serpent

[Reply] #93
02-22-2014 10:13 PM
Joined: 09-10-2012
Posts: 77,118
offline
Izayoi
Izayoi
~Prince Swordsman~
Rep: 207

Um, Ty?

I know this is probably the last person who should ask this question, but you only provided an example of what would be acceptable content of females.

What about males?


__________________

[Reply] #94
02-22-2014 10:14 PM
Joined: 02-02-2014
Posts: 1,879
offline
Paris
Paris
UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 74

Good job Ty. I like what your doing.


__________________

[Reply] #95
02-22-2014 10:16 PM
Joined: 06-13-2013
Posts: 601
offline
Uchiha Sharingan Itachi
Uchiha Sharingan Itachi
Regular
Rep: 10

Haha, -Tyreus- I like what you’re doing man. About that promoting AIDB to global moderator business though...


__________________

[Reply] #96
02-22-2014 10:17 PM
Joined: 04-01-2007
Posts: 20,050
offline
-Tyreaus-
-Tyreaus-
|[The Author]|
Rep: 182

Zeed wrote: Um, Ty?

I know this is probably the last person who should ask this question, but you only provided an example of what would be acceptable content of females.

What about males?



Take the total amount of cloth in the female’s body and apply it into the shape of swim trunks on the same two-dimensional model of a male.

It really isn’t that common for those types of pictures in guys, but the ratio of skin/cloth should be about the same in a two-dimensional grid. So no thongs.


__________________

The Golden Serpent

[Reply] #97
02-22-2014 10:18 PM
Joined: 09-10-2012
Posts: 77,118
offline
Izayoi
Izayoi
~Prince Swordsman~
Rep: 207

-Tyreaus- wrote:

Zeed wrote: Um, Ty?

I know this is probably the last person who should ask this question, but you only provided an example of what would be acceptable content of females.

What about males?



Take the total amount of cloth in the female’s body and apply it into the shape of swim trunks on the same two-dimensional model of a male.

It really isn’t that common for those types of pictures in guys, but the ratio of skin/cloth should be about the same in a two-dimensional grid. So no thongs.

Ok.

So, basically, no nudity between the waist and knees?


__________________

[Reply] #98
02-22-2014 10:20 PM
Joined: 04-01-2007
Posts: 20,050
offline
-Tyreaus-
-Tyreaus-
|[The Author]|
Rep: 182

Uchiha Sharingan Itachi wrote: Haha, -Tyreus- I like what you’re doing man. About that promoting AIDB to global moderator business though...



I’ll make the answer brief:

At the moment, I’m only reinstating certain section mods. Sheko thus far is tending to global moderation and, unless he has some problem he hasn’t PMed me about yet (which, if he does, he really should, as I can assign another GM), he seems to be tending to things just fine.

The other moderators also told me they were going to tend to staff reparations whilst I tended to this issue, so I’m leaving the big stuff in their hands for the time being.

~Ty


__________________

The Golden Serpent

[Reply] #99
02-22-2014 10:21 PM
Joined: 04-01-2007
Posts: 20,050
offline
-Tyreaus-
-Tyreaus-
|[The Author]|
Rep: 182

Zeed wrote:

-Tyreaus- wrote:

Zeed wrote: Um, Ty?

I know this is probably the last person who should ask this question, but you only provided an example of what would be acceptable content of females.

What about males?



Take the total amount of cloth in the female’s body and apply it into the shape of swim trunks on the same two-dimensional model of a male.

It really isn’t that common for those types of pictures in guys, but the ratio of skin/cloth should be about the same in a two-dimensional grid. So no thongs.

Ok.

So, basically, no nudity between the waist and knees?



You could possibly get away with skin halfway up the thigh (as seems to be the case in mens' underwear packets, which I find just, weird...) but it would be pushing it past that.


__________________

The Golden Serpent

[Reply] #100
02-22-2014 10:22 PM
Joined: 09-10-2012
Posts: 77,118
offline
Izayoi
Izayoi
~Prince Swordsman~
Rep: 207

-Tyreaus- wrote:

Zeed wrote:

-Tyreaus- wrote:

Zeed wrote: Um, Ty?

I know this is probably the last person who should ask this question, but you only provided an example of what would be acceptable content of females.

What about males?



Take the total amount of cloth in the female’s body and apply it into the shape of swim trunks on the same two-dimensional model of a male.

It really isn’t that common for those types of pictures in guys, but the ratio of skin/cloth should be about the same in a two-dimensional grid. So no thongs.

Ok.

So, basically, no nudity between the waist and knees?



You could possibly get away with skin halfway up the thigh (as seems to be the case in mens' underwear packets, which I find just, weird...) but it would be pushing it past that.

Alrighty.


__________________

<< First < Prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 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