FSTDT Forums

Community => The Lounge => Topic started by: Sigmaleph on August 08, 2013, 01:58:14 am

Title: The Rules
Post by: Sigmaleph on August 08, 2013, 01:58:14 am
[Due to the changes in administration, The Rules have been updated and rewritten. They are not that different from the old rules; if you haven't been banned before, just carry on as usual and there should be no problem.]


Most of this stuff should be covered by The Primary Rule, but do take the time to read through and ask any questions or suggest any modifications you find reasonable.


The Primary Rule: Use your common sense. Rules are a tool to keep this community running and fun to be a  a part of. As such, I reserve the right to take official measures against anything that might be excessively disruptive/annoying/stupid, regardless of the existence of a specific rule on the subject. Similarly, I reserve the right not to take action against something that breaks the letter of the rules if I don't think it's appropriate, at my sole discretion.


The Serious Stuff: Don't mess around with these. For many of them, violations will be cause for instant permabans.

Don't post content that breaks the law.

Don't post pornographic material. There's an entire internet's worth of porn out there, no need to put it here

Don't spam. That includes starting threads with the sole purpose of advertising a product, repeatedly making the same threads, flooding the boards, etc.

Don't post other people's private information without their consent. If you're posting a screencap from Facebook or similar, black out the names of the people involved.

Don't use sockpuppets (multiple accounts by the same person). If you must, for whatever reason, create a new account, make it clear that you are the same person.
    -In particular, sockpuppets for the purposes of ban dodging are cause for an instantaneous permanent ban.


Don't be a dick: Guidelines to make sure we don't piss each other off too much. You might be given a pass for breaking these, depending on context. Note: The list is not exhaustive, try to be guided by the general spirit rather than specific rules alone.

Don't post in ALL CAPS. Similarly, don't abuse formatting (huge fonts, scrolling text, colors, etc). Doing it occasionally for effect is fine. Doing it in all your posts is not.

Huge pictures should be either resized or placed behind a spoiler or link.

Don't make your signature too long. As a rough rule, if your average post is shorter than your signature, consider fixing it.

Potentially disturbing or NSFW images should be behind a spoiler or link and clearly labelled as such. Don't put them in your avatar or signature. Posts in threads clearly labelled as containing such (e.g. 'Disturbing Images') are exempted.

Don't make sexist, racist, homophobic or transphobic remarks.

If you disagree with someone's philosophical or religious beliefs, attack the belief, not the person.

Don't harass other users.

Don't tell people to commit suicide.

Disagreements will happen. Try to argue in good faith and don't immediately leap to the worst possible interpretation of your opponent's words.


Flame and Burn: The F&B subforum has its own special rules

Insults, name-calling, violent disagreement and other such things are allowed in Flame and Burn, and only there. Don't post it elsewhere.

Don't expect an otherwise civil thread to be moved to F&B, start your own.

Threads about venting anger not related to the forums should not go in F&B. Keeps things better organised, and stops them from turning into personal attack threads.

[new] Certain controversial topics cause a lot of unnecessary drama. If you really want to talk about them anyway, do it in F&B. At the moment, the only topic that can only be discussed in F&B is Gamergate.


Miscellaneous rules: Because I didn't want to make more categories.

The Skyfire clause: If someone asks you a direct question, acknowledge it. You may answer, or state your refusal to do so, just don't ignore it.

Don't use disposable or temporary email accounts, we might need to contact you (such as about a ban, forum change, etc.). Free email accounts, such as with Yahoo or Google, are fine.

Necroposting: Don't post on a thread several weeks after the last post, unless you have a relevant update (New information on a story is fine, 'haha that's so funny' is not). Stickied threads, or threads with a specific purpose ('Best political cartoons', 'worst of social justice', etc) are exempt.

Backseat moderation: Don't call for bans or other official action. The proper action to take when seeing a post you think is breaking the rules is to use the report button, or PM a moderator. If, after doing so, you think the problem wasn't dealt with adequately, contact that moderator or the admin.
Pointing out an inadvertent violation in another user's post and asking them to correct it is fine. Try to be nice about it, we all make mistakes.


Moderation:

Official action by the mod team includes warnings, temporary bans, and permanent bans. If a moderator gives you a warning, that means you (possibly inadvertently) broke one of the rules above. Simply don't do it again and everything will be fine. Repeated violations will result in temp bans of increasing length, and then a permaban. Normally, this might be a week, then a month, then permanent. These are general guidelines, however, and individual cases will be treated differently.

If you disagree with the actions of a moderator, either sort it out with them or contact the admin (that's me) and argue your case. If you disagree with the admin's actions, well, make the best argument you can. I do try to be open to reason.


Changelog:

Added the backseat moderation rule

Removed a section on the F&B rules regarding thread locking.

Chewtoy rule struck as redundant.

[2015/11/09] "Only discuss Gamergate in F&B" rule added.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Lithp on August 08, 2013, 04:39:53 am
As someone who is afraid of change, it is unsurprising that I have some concerns about some of the new stuff. Let's bear in mind, I was initially a skeptical about the Direct Questions Rule (now the Skyfire Clause), but after seeing how useful it was in action, I'm now one of its biggest supporters.

Quote
The Primary Rule: Use your common sense. Rules are a tool to keep this community running and fun to be a  a part of. As such, I reserve the right to take official measures against anything that might be excessively disruptive/annoying/stupid, regardless of the existence of a specific rule on the subject. Similarly, I reserve the right not to take action against something that breaks the letter of the rules if I don't think it's appropriate, at my sole discretion.

I understand that the idea here is to prevent Rules Lawyering, but there are some pretty good reasons for complaining about things not being upheld to the letter of the rules. How is one supposed to know what not to do if there are invisible rules? "The funny thing about common sense is that it isn't common," after all. Even assuming one won't be banned under this rule, how is one supposed to avoid getting questionable warnings & watchlist statuses? Plus, looking to see if the rules are applied in a consistent fashion is pretty much the only way to know if one is being treated fairly.

Yeah, I'm taking a mighty harsh interpretation here, but when I first came here, I got burned a lot in the past, so those are exactly the things I would have asked myself. I want new members to know that's not the way we do things around here.

Quote
The purpose of Flame & Burn is to provide a venue for venting on disagreements when they happen, and ideally solving them before they get worse. As such, the mod team may at their discretion lock an F&B thread that has devolved into screaming back and forth with no actual effort to move past the issue.

Flame & Burn really gives a release to the pressure. That is presumably why certain rules are waived within its borders. If we're going to keep putting limits on it, I don't know why would even have it. Flame & Burn, to me, seems to be a brilliant compromise between not stifling users with oppressive anti-flame rules, while at the same time not allowing them to muck up the boards with constant, vitriolic back-&-forths. The few disagreements that don't simply burn out have proven to not be stifled by locking threads, either. I think it requires few, if any, alterations to the way it operates.

Quote
Chewtoys: If you show up to the forum to proselitise or troll, you may or may not get immediately banned depending on how amusing it is to argue with you. That doesn't mean we won't ban you if you cross the line, as determined by us.

The reintroduction of an old idea. I really do see the temptation, here. I have a fond nostalgia for certain wannabe-trolls, but I also didn't like the sense of entitlement that it engendered in the board. Trolls that irritated the shit out a number of people & probably could have been axed were left around just because some found them funny, & if a "chewtoy" finally was banned, there would be an uproar. At the same time as they benefited from this entirely undue leniency, there was also an implicit encouragement to dogpile the "chewtoy" & the label was seen as invalidating what they said to many people, regardless of the context.

I just don't see why we need some kind of designated forum bitch. If people collectively find a member amusing, & the member isn't doing anything wrong enough to get banned, shouldn't that be enough?

Quote
Normally, this might be a week, then a month, then permanent.

This one I'm not sure how I feel about. A year can make a lot of difference in a person's outlook. At the same time, if you've already had 2 chances, who the fuck cares? I guess you do say that there are individual cases. I don't know, what motivated you to remove the year ban?
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Sleepy on August 08, 2013, 10:12:59 am
I can agree somewhat with Lithp's concern about the primary rule. While I don't think it'll be abused, it does leave a lot of room for mods to issue a warning for things that may not be deserving of one.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Sigmaleph on August 08, 2013, 10:45:45 am
First of all, thanks for the feedback. I expect The Rules to go through a number of revisions, to reflect things I haven't thought or general consensus, especially at a point where the forum is in shift.

As someone who is afraid of change, it is unsurprising that I have some concerns about some of the new stuff. Let's bear in mind, I was initially a skeptical about the Direct Questions Rule (now the Skyfire Clause), but after seeing how useful it was in action, I'm now one of its biggest supporters.

Quote
The Primary Rule: Use your common sense. Rules are a tool to keep this community running and fun to be a  a part of. As such, I reserve the right to take official measures against anything that might be excessively disruptive/annoying/stupid, regardless of the existence of a specific rule on the subject. Similarly, I reserve the right not to take action against something that breaks the letter of the rules if I don't think it's appropriate, at my sole discretion.

I understand that the idea here is to prevent Rules Lawyering, but there are some pretty good reasons for complaining about things not being upheld to the letter of the rules. How is one supposed to know what not to do if there are invisible rules? "The funny thing about common sense is that it isn't common," after all. Even assuming one won't be banned under this rule, how is one supposed to avoid getting questionable warnings & watchlist statuses? Plus, looking to see if the rules are applied in a consistent fashion is pretty much the only way to know if one is being treated fairly.

I understand your concerns, and I didn't write that lightly.

a) In the general case, most posters on an internet forum acting in good faith manage not to do anything unusually disruptive. Common sense in general may not be common, but people tend to have the required minimum not to fuck it up too badly. I am appealing to this fact, and to the notion that people who manage to disrupt the forum without violating a specific rule are generally trying to do so.

b) This was already a part of the rules, effectively. The original don't be a dick rule was ambiguous enough that nearly anything someone disliked could be construed as an offence. I worded it the way I did because I think it's worth spelling out that a list of rules cannot hope to capture everything that might come up, and that at some point you have to trust the mods to be reasonable.

c) On that note: if you can't trust the moderators to behave reasonably, the text of the rules is no safeguard. An admin can choose to entirely disregard the rules as written at any point anyway, and you can't really appeal to the Supreme Court on the matter.

That doesn't mean the text of the rules is irrelevant, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to write any. The rules above should capture the general spirit of the sort of thing that might be objectionable. The cases dealt with as exceptions should be exceptional, not the norm, and if I find myself ruling on exceptions too often then clearly something is wrong and the rules need updating.

As for fairness in enforcement, yes, it's a concern. All I can say is, if you think the rules are being inconsistently applied yell in my general direction and try to provide examples.

And finally, I believe the alternative is worse. There's simply far too many ways to be an asshole to even begin to cover them in the rules, and if I did the resulting document would be a thousand pages long and nobody would read it. Refusing to act because one asshole in particular wasn't covered, or treating different situations the same way because it's in the text of the rules and we didn't factor in relevant context, will be worse.

Quote
Quote
The purpose of Flame & Burn is to provide a venue for venting on disagreements when they happen, and ideally solving them before they get worse. As such, the mod team may at their discretion lock an F&B thread that has devolved into screaming back and forth with no actual effort to move past the issue.

Flame & Burn really gives a release to the pressure. That is presumably why certain rules are waived within its borders. If we're going to keep putting limits on it, I don't know why would even have it. Flame & Burn, to me, seems to be a brilliant compromise between not stifling users with oppressive anti-flame rules, while at the same time not allowing them to muck up the boards with constant, vitriolic back-&-forths. The few disagreements that don't simply burn out have proven to not be stifled by locking threads, either. I think it requires few, if any, alterations to the way it operates.

That's actually a relaxation of the last version of the F&B rules, which specified a maximum number of posts per thread. Which reminds me, that's still up in F&B, I should fix it.

Still, on reflection, my wording here wasn't the best. Flame & Burn won't serve its function if people feel threads might be locked at any minute, but at the same time flaming threads can give people more excuses to be angry rather than help them vent. I'll probably be rewriting this section in the future.

Quote
Quote
Chewtoys: If you show up to the forum to proselitise or troll, you may or may not get immediately banned depending on how amusing it is to argue with you. That doesn't mean we won't ban you if you cross the line, as determined by us.

The reintroduction of an old idea. I really do see the temptation, here. I have a fond nostalgia for certain wannabe-trolls, but I also didn't like the sense of entitlement that it engendered in the board. Trolls that irritated the shit out a number of people & probably could have been axed were left around just because some found them funny, & if a "chewtoy" finally was banned, there would be an uproar. At the same time as they benefited from this entirely undue leniency, there was also an implicit encouragement to dogpile the "chewtoy" & the label was seen as invalidating what they said to many people, regardless of the context.

I just don't see why we need some kind of designated forum bitch. If people collectively find a member amusing, & the member isn't doing anything wrong enough to get banned, shouldn't that be enough?

That's mostly for the benefit of people who ask why obvious troll X hasn't been banned yet (It already happened with Atheism Exposed, even though since his last ban he's not done much beyond say stupid things). "Trolling" is one of those things that's hard to quantify and we'll always have people arguing whether something falls under Don't be a Dick or not. It has to be dealt with individually, so a blanket ban on trolling doesn't really work. At the same time, we also need to clarify that trolling can be worthy of a ban in itself without consideration for further rules.

Since disruptiveness to the forum is the fundamental principle of the rules, and a troll's disruptiveness does in fact depend a lot on whether they are amusing or infuriating, it seems that it's a valid criterion to consider.

That, and having someone else to rage at can be a decent way to distract people from internal drama.


Quote
Quote
Normally, this might be a week, then a month, then permanent.

This one I'm not sure how I feel about. A year can make a lot of difference in a person's outlook. At the same time, if you've already had 2 chances, who the fuck cares? I guess you do say that there are individual cases. I don't know, what motivated you to remove the year ban?

The year period seemed superfluous. If I recall correctly, the only person ever to make it to 'year' without getting permabanned for some other reason was Skyfire, and he didn't bother to come back after his time was up. Since the week/month/perma pattern is intended to be a basic guideline to base the duration of bans on, it should be based on what has actually worked in the past. So far, year has been functionally identical to perma, so I scrapped it.

The possibility for bans longer than a month remains, if we think it might help.


Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Sleepy on August 08, 2013, 10:55:47 am
That sounds fair to me, overall. The "don't be a dick" rule was broad, so I guess this is essentially a more explicit version of it. I also agree that it's best to change the F&B rules, as it was silly to cap threads at an arbitrary number of posts.

Trolls seem to be best evaluated on a case-by-case basis because some may engage in amusing or legitimate debates, and others may do drive-by spamming of porn or other random things. If they're not breaking the rules, then I don't see why they should be banned.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: m52nickerson on August 08, 2013, 11:36:39 am
I like the primary rule idea.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Radiation on August 08, 2013, 12:41:16 pm
Quote
If you show up to the forum to proselitise or troll, you may or may not get immediately banned depending on how amusing it is to argue with you. That doesn't mean we won't ban you if you cross the line, as determined by us.

A little nitpick here but the word is spelled proselytize.

Also, I think there should be a rule about those on here not calling out for a ban of someone or saying that someone is going to be banned and to report to the moderators if they see something that is breaking a rule or rules.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Sleepy on August 08, 2013, 12:46:54 pm
Quote
If you show up to the forum to proselitise or troll, you may or may not get immediately banned depending on how amusing it is to argue with you. That doesn't mean we won't ban you if you cross the line, as determined by us.

A little nitpick here but the word is spelled proselytize.

Also, I think there should be a rule about those on here not calling out for a ban of someone or saying that someone is going to be banned and to report to the moderators if they see something that is breaking a rule or rules.

Are you saying that there should be a rule against posters saying "I think this person should be banned"? Just trying to clarify.

Also, while it's nice to have posters report stuff like spam, you can't really enforce a rule stating that we must report rule-breaking.

Edit: Oh, nevermind. You're saying rather than people being all "Ban him!" we should just report it to mods. While that's a decent idea, again, I don't think you can enforce it so well since people may've already reported it to a mod via PM and others may not know.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Auri-El on August 08, 2013, 12:52:46 pm
I think it's more along the lines of "leave the ban threats to the mods. If you see something you think breaks the rules, report it, don't call the person out."
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Leafy on August 08, 2013, 12:58:18 pm
These all seem good to me...Should be "Da Rules" though...
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Sleepy on August 08, 2013, 01:17:08 pm
I don't think people should be threatening others with bans, but it's perfectly fine to call someone out and say "Hey, don't post personal info," or "Put that under a spoiler," because that gets the job done faster and lessens the damage.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Osama bin Bambi on August 08, 2013, 01:20:32 pm
I like the primary rule idea.

Maybe it should be called the Primary Directive. :P
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: m52nickerson on August 08, 2013, 01:23:54 pm
I like the primary rule idea.

Maybe it should be called the Primary Directive. :P

Let's just go with the "Prime Directive" and cut to the chase!
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Sigmaleph on August 08, 2013, 03:50:15 pm
Quote
If you show up to the forum to proselitise or troll, you may or may not get immediately banned depending on how amusing it is to argue with you. That doesn't mean we won't ban you if you cross the line, as determined by us.

A little nitpick here but the word is spelled proselytize.

Oops. Thanks for noticing that.

I'm actually amazed that's the only major spelling mistake so far, I wrote the entire thing with spell check turned off.

Quote
Also, I think there should be a rule about those on here not calling out for a ban of someone or saying that someone is going to be banned and to report to the moderators if they see something that is breaking a rule or rules.
I don't think people should be threatening others with bans, but it's perfectly fine to call someone out and say "Hey, don't post personal info," or "Put that under a spoiler," because that gets the job done faster and lessens the damage.

Added the backseat moderation rule. It was supposed to be in the original draft, somehow it wasn't. Also made it clear that it's ok to tell a poster to fix a mistake.


Also, after some reflection, I've removed the "locking threads in F&B" rule. That doesn't mean F&B threads are exempt from being locked, but I don't think a specific rule on the subject was necessary, and the way that one was worded seemed counterproductive. If I can think of a better way to put what I had in mind, there might be something on the subject later on.

I like the primary rule idea.

Maybe it should be called the Primary Directive. :P

Let's just go with the "Prime Directive" and cut to the chase!

I was tempted.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Radiation on August 08, 2013, 07:40:20 pm
About the locking threads in F&B, would it be ok to lock threads after so many posts and/or the argument has become pointless/unresolvable? I believe that we had that provision set at 700+ posts.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Sigmaleph on August 08, 2013, 08:11:16 pm
Something to that effect is what I have in mind, yes, but "unresolvable" is difficult to specify, which is why I hesitate to make a definitive rule about it. For now, it shall be a case-by-case matter (as is thread locking in general).
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: m52nickerson on August 08, 2013, 09:30:29 pm
I was tempted.

Do it!  If for no other reason you could use Picard memes when someone is breaking the rule.

Such as...

(http://i.qkme.me/3py920.jpg)
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Lithp on August 09, 2013, 05:40:57 am
That possibility amuses me & I'm not even a fan of Star Trek.

Quote
b) This was already a part of the rules, effectively. The original don't be a dick rule was ambiguous enough that nearly anything someone disliked could be construed as an offence.

I guess that is kind of true. I don't know, it's been a while.

Quote
c) On that note: if you can't trust the moderators to behave reasonably, the text of the rules is no safeguard. An admin can choose to entirely disregard the rules as written at any point anyway, and you can't really appeal to the Supreme Court on the matter.

Well, yeah.

It's not so much that I expect you guys to willfully abuse anything, I just ideologically oppose certain rules. This is mainly when I think that the problems outweigh the benefits, & I don't see the need to go there in the first place. I also think that less is usually more.

Quote
As for fairness in enforcement, yes, it's a concern. All I can say is, if you think the rules are being inconsistently applied yell in my general direction and try to provide examples.

I guess that really is all that can be done.

Quote
And finally, I believe the alternative is worse. There's simply far too many ways to be an asshole to even begin to cover them in the rules, and if I did the resulting document would be a thousand pages long and nobody would read it. Refusing to act because one asshole in particular wasn't covered, or treating different situations the same way because it's in the text of the rules and we didn't factor in relevant context, will be worse.

As long as people get fair warning, I guess I don't really see it as an issue.

Quote
At the same time, we also need to clarify that trolling can be worthy of a ban in itself without consideration for further rules.

This is one of those things I'm ideologically opposed to. If a troll is disruptive enough to ban, it's very unlikely that they aren't breaking any rules. Even with as few rules as Not-FSTDT has. I think "troll" works best as a descriptive label, kind of like "asshat" or "douchebag." It's just not the same as "don't spam" or "don't post porn," or even as "don't necropost" or "don't backseat mod," which can all be more-or-less clearly demonstrated.

Quote
That, and having someone else to rage at can be a decent way to distract people from internal drama.

I'd call that a form of drama. I think that, if it is aimed at the board in general, it pretty much falls under "don't backseat mod." My problem is mostly with the designation/labeling. "Chewtoys" never really went anywhere, you bring up the example of Atheism Exposed, we just stopped referring to them as such. And I think that, in doing so, we kept our smarmy attitudes, but lost some of our mob mentality.

Speaking of "don't backseat mod," I was wondering where that leaves the whole "you are a bad member & you should not be here" type statements?

Quote
The year period seemed superfluous. If I recall correctly, the only person ever to make it to 'year' without getting permabanned for some other reason was Skyfire, and he didn't bother to come back after his time was up. Since the week/month/perma pattern is intended to be a basic guideline to base the duration of bans on, it should be based on what has actually worked in the past. So far, year has been functionally identical to perma, so I scrapped it.

The possibility for bans longer than a month remains, if we think it might help.

Makes sense.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Sigmaleph on August 09, 2013, 01:10:31 pm
Quote
At the same time, we also need to clarify that trolling can be worthy of a ban in itself without consideration for further rules.

This is one of those things I'm ideologically opposed to. If a troll is disruptive enough to ban, it's very unlikely that they aren't breaking any rules. Even with as few rules as Not-FSTDT has. I think "troll" works best as a descriptive label, kind of like "asshat" or "douchebag." It's just not the same as "don't spam" or "don't post porn," or even as "don't necropost" or "don't backseat mod," which can all be more-or-less clearly demonstrated.

Most of the time, yes, a troll is usually breaking some other rule. But I've seen a fair number of them that try to find their way around them and then complain that they didn't break any rules.

The argument could be made that this is redundant, since rules-lawyering is why I created the primary rule. The counter-argument could be made that it's worth specifying it as a matter of policy.

I'm arguing with myself here. Further opinions on the subject are welcome.

Quote
Quote
That, and having someone else to rage at can be a decent way to distract people from internal drama.

I'd call that a form of drama. I think that, if it is aimed at the board in general, it pretty much falls under "don't backseat mod." My problem is mostly with the designation/labeling. "Chewtoys" never really went anywhere, you bring up the example of Atheism Exposed, we just stopped referring to them as such. And I think that, in doing so, we kept our smarmy attitudes, but lost some of our mob mentality.

I see. Do you propose the rule be removed, or restructured in such a way that it doesn't result in designated targets?


Quote
Speaking of "don't backseat mod," I was wondering where that leaves the whole "you are a bad member & you should not be here" type statements?

Frowned upon, but not directly in violation of a rule, depending on context. Could easily fall under Don't be a Dick, but not backseat moderation (Unless you specifically phrase it to imply "you should be removed" rather than "you should quit"). Does that make sense?
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: RavynousHunter on August 09, 2013, 01:37:55 pm
If nothin else, the last bit makes sense to me.  One's telling another member to bugger off which, while its bad form, isn't as...severe as what is, essentially, ordering the mod staff around.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Lithp on August 09, 2013, 08:34:56 pm
Quote
I'm arguing with myself here. Further opinions on the subject are welcome.

I think that most people who get banned, most of the time, will claim that they haven't done anything, regardless of their intention. Doesn't necessarily mean there's truth to their claim. That's just been my experience, I'm not sure what others would say.

Quote
I see. Do you propose the rule be removed, or restructured in such a way that it doesn't result in designated targets?

Both would make sense to me. I'd think that restructuring it would be redundant, with Don't Backseat Mod, but eh.

Quote
Frowned upon, but not directly in violation of a rule, depending on context. Could easily fall under Don't be a Dick, but not backseat moderation (Unless you specifically phrase it to imply "you should be removed" rather than "you should quit"). Does that make sense?

Yes, it does, thanks. And, after some back-&-forth, I'd have to say that I agree with it.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: mellenORL on August 10, 2013, 02:08:23 pm
Can we bring back exalts/fuck yeahs? I would add the caveat, though, that there NOT be a button for negs/fuck noes....that keeps grudges and cowardly secret flaming from happening like last time. As to chew toys, they should be "vetted" as to whether they are true trolls...like in a fun kangaroo court thread where the mods and admin act as tribunal. Once the chew toy is vetted as a genuine stubborn true believer, and not a troll, they should be given an honorific badge; they would be the only members to have a fuck no button enabled on their avatar tile. ;D
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Death. on August 10, 2013, 03:12:01 pm
LOL @ the Skyfire clause, just LOL

What happened to the little .... anyway?

Has he been married off and now has ten kids and three sister wives ?

Did he ever get his canon ( sic ) of Transformers fandon fiction published ( oh, Sandman lolled for weeks, months over that, as did I ) ?

Is he still bothering people over at deviantart?
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: ironbite on August 10, 2013, 04:39:28 pm
As far as I know, he's bothering me over at the Allspark.  They revoked his Politics and Religion privileges though but now he's using the Pokemon Thread to inform us of Anime going ons.

Ironbite-still hasn't figured out...nobody cares.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Sigmaleph on August 10, 2013, 04:43:45 pm
Oh, hey, Death is back.

Skyfire got a year-long ban a while back (for violating the eponymous rule repeatedly, IIRC) and never bothered to come back after it expired. His activities elsewhere can be documented by other users (see for instance Ironbite above.)


@mellenORL: I am extremely wary of bringing the karma system back, given how it turned out the last two times. Looking into it, it might be possible to disable the "smite" button, but there's no way of enabling it only for specific users.


Finally: I'm leaning towards striking the chewtoy rule as redundant. Anyone that is strongly attached to it may speak now in its favour
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Sleepy on August 10, 2013, 05:23:48 pm
I think it's a bad idea to bring back the karma system after everything that happened with it. Even lacking the "fuck no" button, it still leads to people comparing numbers and holding grudges over those. It doesn't contribute anything positive.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: QueenofHearts on August 10, 2013, 05:36:28 pm
I think it's a bad idea to bring back the karma system after everything that happened with it. Even lacking the "fuck no" button, it still leads to people comparing numbers and holding grudges over those. It doesn't contribute anything positive.

pretty much this, I think the DRAMA system is best left in the past.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: dpareja on August 10, 2013, 10:09:37 pm
I think it's a bad idea to bring back the karma system after everything that happened with it. Even lacking the "fuck no" button, it still leads to people comparing numbers and holding grudges over those. It doesn't contribute anything positive.

The only way I could see it coming back is if a) who gave exalts/smites to a post is public (at least public to all members) and b) you actually have to give some sort of reason for the exalt/smite, which is also shown publicly with said exalt/smite.

Even with that, it would probably just lead to way too much drama.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Lithp on August 10, 2013, 11:02:52 pm
I would like to believe that we are mature enough to handle the system, but that's what I said last time. Maybe it's best to just not go there.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Art Vandelay on August 10, 2013, 11:50:07 pm
Yeah, the exalt/smite system is a cute system in theory. However, it's always ruined by a few shitheads who just have to use it to create drama. Nothing good can come of bringing it back.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Witchyjoshy on August 11, 2013, 05:07:24 am
I would like to believe that we are mature enough to handle the system, but that's what I said last time. Maybe it's best to just not go there.

I'm going to agree with not going there.

The only way I'd possibly support it is if it used a non-alphanumeric form of measurement that didn't measure anything at all.  Like, it would sometimes display "fish", and sometimes "banana".

But as that's convoluted and simply an exercise in comedic nonsense, let's just avoid something that's caused drama.  Twice now.  Or three times, I forget.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Søren on August 11, 2013, 05:17:21 am
I just find it perpetually wonderful that people gave a damn about those little numbers
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Witchyjoshy on August 11, 2013, 05:28:28 am
I just find it perpetually wonderful that people gave a damn about those little numbers

Pretty sure it was the possible intent behind those numbers rather than the numbers themselves.

That being said, humanity has cared about arbitrary numbers ever since we've had numbers.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: RavynousHunter on August 11, 2013, 09:13:58 am
Yes, please, let's actually learn from the lessons of the past, this time.  Because if someone isn't spamming smites/exalts to stir up bullshit, its people using those same numbers as a basis for entire bullshit threads bitching when one member gets a high number of negatives.  Or positives.

Keiro and Nap were, to put it bluntly, fucking morons when they brought it back last time.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: QueenofHearts on August 11, 2013, 11:52:44 am
I just find it perpetually wonderful that people gave a damn about those little numbers

Me too, me too.

Though, maybe we should bring it back, the drama it caused was kind of hilarious...
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: SpaceProg on August 11, 2013, 12:19:26 pm
What about where you can give approvals or exalts to particular posts.  I've seen elsewhere where if someone posts something that's a good point or funny or what have you, someone can click an icon and it says below the post "_____ Likes this post."  Something like that, anyway.

You wouldn't be approving of the particular person as much as you'd be agreeing with what they said.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: dpareja on August 11, 2013, 02:40:24 pm
What about where you can give approvals or exalts to particular posts.  I've seen elsewhere where if someone posts something that's a good point or funny or what have you, someone can click an icon and it says below the post "_____ Likes this post."  Something like that, anyway.

You wouldn't be approving of the particular person as much as you'd be agreeing with what they said.

This can still lead to trolling with people simply liking every post a particular poster makes.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Sigmaleph on August 11, 2013, 02:50:45 pm
What about where you can give approvals or exalts to particular posts.  I've seen elsewhere where if someone posts something that's a good point or funny or what have you, someone can click an icon and it says below the post "_____ Likes this post."  Something like that, anyway.

You wouldn't be approving of the particular person as much as you'd be agreeing with what they said.

Can't be implemented with the current system, and I'd rather not mess around with the forum software to see if it can be done.

If you liked someone's post, simply post on the thread saying so (ideally giving a reason why).


In other news, I've removed the chewtoy rule, given that it was ultimately redundant.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Lithp on August 12, 2013, 12:25:32 am
Quote
Keiro and Nap were, to put it bluntly, fucking morons when they brought it back last time.

...A bunch of people really wanted it. There was a poll on it & everything. It's not like Napoleon, or even Keiro were really gung-ho for it.

Hm. I might be responsible for some of Queen's Fuck No spam. I think there was a period that I just Fuck No'd every post I liked.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: SpaceProg on August 12, 2013, 12:36:05 am
I remember when Ibby would run around Fuck No'ing innocents randomly.   Like me. ;)   You always could tell you were fuck no'd by Ibby when he went Heheheheeheheheheheh!
Crazy little dinosaur.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: QueenofHearts on August 12, 2013, 09:16:14 am
Quote
Keiro and Nap were, to put it bluntly, fucking morons when they brought it back last time.

...A bunch of people really wanted it. There was a poll on it & everything. It's not like Napoleon, or even Keiro were really gung-ho for it.

Hm. I might be responsible for some of Queen's Fuck No spam. I think there was a period that I just Fuck No'd every post I liked.

Not to mention, Nappy specifically brought it back as a joke. I recall Nappy and Vene smiting each other like crazy for the lulz. If anything, I think Distind's the dumbass for keeping the system going 9 months or so after it was voted (overwhelmingly) to be scrapped because of the first bout of "people are mean to Cait" butthurt-extravaganza. Of course, I think he just kept the DRAMA system to stroke his ego. If only cause Distind's shown himself to be conceited and selfish.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: anti-nonsense on August 12, 2013, 01:17:06 pm
And a drama-llama.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: SpaceProg on August 12, 2013, 01:26:36 pm
I remember when Ibby would run around Fuck No'ing innocents randomly.   Like me. ;)   You always could tell you were fuck no'd by Ibby when he went Heheheheeheheheheheh!
Crazy little dinosaur.

Oy, don't post while drunk, folks.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Sleepy on August 12, 2013, 02:04:26 pm
That's a damn good drunk post.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: SpaceProg on August 12, 2013, 02:55:37 pm
Yeah I rarely do a lot of misspells, but I do go on the chain-of-thought rail sometimes.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Lithp on August 12, 2013, 11:29:42 pm
Quote
Keiro and Nap were, to put it bluntly, fucking morons when they brought it back last time.

...A bunch of people really wanted it. There was a poll on it & everything. It's not like Napoleon, or even Keiro were really gung-ho for it.

Hm. I might be responsible for some of Queen's Fuck No spam. I think there was a period that I just Fuck No'd every post I liked.

Not to mention, Nappy specifically brought it back as a joke. I recall Nappy and Vene smiting each other like crazy for the lulz. If anything, I think Distind's the dumbass for keeping the system going 9 months or so after it was voted (overwhelmingly) to be scrapped because of the first bout of "people are mean to Cait" butthurt-extravaganza. Of course, I think he just kept the DRAMA system to stroke his ego. If only cause Distind's shown himself to be conceited and selfish.

Yeah, the consensus that was reached was to bring it back, but treat it as a joke. In that regard, it could be pretty funny, which is why I was kind of sad to see it go, & say not to bring it back.

This is why we can't have nice things!
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: PosthumanHeresy on August 15, 2013, 06:40:16 am
Quote
Keiro and Nap were, to put it bluntly, fucking morons when they brought it back last time.

...A bunch of people really wanted it. There was a poll on it & everything. It's not like Napoleon, or even Keiro were really gung-ho for it.

Hm. I might be responsible for some of Queen's Fuck No spam. I think there was a period that I just Fuck No'd every post I liked.

Not to mention, Nappy specifically brought it back as a joke. I recall Nappy and Vene smiting each other like crazy for the lulz. If anything, I think Distind's the dumbass for keeping the system going 9 months or so after it was voted (overwhelmingly) to be scrapped because of the first bout of "people are mean to Cait" butthurt-extravaganza. Of course, I think he just kept the DRAMA system to stroke his ego. If only cause Distind's shown himself to be conceited and selfish.
Agreed. I kinda think of him as Vinnie Vincent at this point.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Death. on August 15, 2013, 03:46:24 pm
All that crap about likes and smiting and in jokes and private forums and hard core porn and posting personal pics drove a lot of the old timers away.

I'm kinda  happy to see that has changed and we're back to being about fundies,


or at least not so in yer face.
 
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Art Vandelay on August 16, 2013, 05:46:56 am
All that crap about likes and smiting and in jokes and private forums and hard core porn and posting personal pics drove a lot of the old timers away.

I'm kinda  happy to see that has changed and we're back to being about fundies,
Oh, make no mistake, the drama is still very much there. It just seems quiet since it hasn't been long since the last explosion of impotent rage and general butthurt.

Give it a month or so and people'll be back to shitting the bed over inconsequential nonsense.
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Lithp on August 17, 2013, 03:02:31 am
All that crap about likes and smiting and in jokes and private forums and hard core porn and posting personal pics drove a lot of the old timers away.

I'm kinda  happy to see that has changed and we're back to being about fundies,
Oh, make no mistake, the drama is still very much there. It just seems quiet since it hasn't been long since the last explosion of impotent rage and general butthurt.

Give it a month or so and people'll be back to shitting the bed over inconsequential nonsense.

I don't understand what the Hell half of that even said. Most of that was always around, & is still around. And in what sense are we "about Fundies again"? We literally just got cut from FSTDT. Now we're some vague legacy name that supposedly a guy I never met thought of before settling on "Fundies Say the Darndest Things."
Title: Re: The Rules
Post by: Sigmaleph on November 09, 2015, 07:33:55 pm
A new rule about only discussing Gamergate in F&B has been added.