RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

McBeefâ„¢ · **05-19-2015, 12:07 PM**

(05-19-2015, 12:06 PM)Hammersmith Wrote:
(05-19-2015, 11:51 AM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: I would agree, if the rules were better defined, and if minor infractions did not inevitably lead to a ban.

Currently though the issue has been any discussion of this topic has been hijacked by people who cry out loudly that dissension and disagreement are wrong, and that you should essentially obey, or get out.

Then it all goes downhill from there, the recent thread 'police state thread' is a decent example.

Reform is not bad, people. And not liking a thing is ok.

That's too black and white for what happened in that thread. Â The thread was a pointed example of "Oh, yeah, ok, we should change things". Â Not "OBEY."

However it was also a good example of why you need the Obey marker on the board, somewhere, clearly spelled out.

Because us nerds are The Wurst when it comes to getting into "White man plays devil's advocate in issue that doesn't affect them in any way shape or form" arguments for the dicking of it.

It's a major note seen over and over again in any RP/Game community. It's why the mods are more than a good idea, they're a requirement. Â It also means some people are going to crybitch about it. Â It is literally a battle you should not be approaching as something you need to "win", like I said.

Consistency mixed with critical acceptance works. Â It's working here, and now, as we speak, with that gif rule re-write.

Just as a note, please follow the 30 minutes waiting period. I'd rather not have this thread explode like the other one. If someone doesn't want to say it in 30 minutes, it's probably not worth saying.

(Though I do think this is a good post, I just want to keep consistent)

Aduu Avagnar · **05-19-2015, 12:21 PM**

(05-18-2015, 03:26 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: So a side question, among the other one.

What do you think the place of image macros, reaction gifs, etc, have in discussions? Do you think they should be banned? Only allowed in certain threads? Allowed in all threads?

I'm personally of the opinion they shouldn't be allowed except in certain types of threads, that they tend to just disrupt a discussion without adding anything of value.

However they are fun, and I like seeing them in lighter hearted threads.

What do you think? Obviously they are frowned upon by the mods and the new updated rules.

Quote:I understand all the rules of the legit talk thread, and will obey them. If I am found to have broken any of the rules, I will refrain from posting in the thread for a week. I understand that the purpose of this thread is to try and maintain discussion in good faith

I would like to expand upon this, if I may?

I believe, as said above that image macro's can serve a humorous addition to a post. If they are the addition, not the core content. Which is what I believe the spirit of the rules is.

Quote:
Spurious off-topic posts, including meme images and patent nonsense

Creating posts and/or topics whose purpose/title is sarcastic, belittling, or intentionally provocative in a negative manner (i.e., "baiting").

I would say that my interpretation is if your entire post can be summed up just by the use of said meme, then is it worth posting? It doesn't add anything to the discussion. If however you have a response thought out and written out, and said meme adds emphasis that is pertinent to your response, then its all gravy.

that is however, my opinion on them.

***Nero*** · **05-19-2015, 12:27 PM**

Quote:I understand all the rules of the legit talk thread, and will obey them. If I am found to have broken any of the rules, I will refrain from posting in the thread for a week. I understand that the purpose of this thread is to try and maintain discussion in good faith

(05-18-2015, 06:48 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: How should we determine whether or not they're appropriate?

(05-19-2015, 11:51 AM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: I would agree, if the rules were better defined, and if minor infractions did not inevitably lead to a ban.

In regarding the point above, the key here is examples. A general policy when writing rules is that you can never be too specific--or, if you prefer more insulting language, that they should be written in a way that accommodates the lowest common denominator--because someone somewhere will make an incorrect assumption. Clear, definite examples that encompass the variety of threads in which low-effort content is permissible/not permissible would remove any of the ambiguity that the rules may fail to address. With the vagueness of the rules swept away, people who receive minor infractions will ideally fall into three categories:

(1) People who don't think before posting despite being aware of the rulesÂ
(2) People who haven't read the rules and are unaware of them
(3) People who don't care about the rules

In cases (1) and (2), the warning system suits it just fine and prevents further future cases. I hesitate in advocating for the idea of infractions that accumulate to a ban for something that is relatively minor in comparison to flaming, harassment, blatant slurs etc. but regardless, making the user aware of their breach in site rules one way or another is enough to stop it.
Â
People who are (3) are going to get banned by their own actions sooner or later anyway. Like Hammersmith above pointed out, it's a similar argument to, say, gun control: there's no point in making guns illegal because criminals will break the law to obtain them anyway.

That said, it's also important to note just how vital proper communication is, especially in regards to moderator vs. user. This entire brouhaha, like most brouhahas do, came out of the two things that cause 99% of all human conflict: kneejerk reaction and miscommunication. Someone receiving an infraction for an inflammatory post should be made aware that the infraction was given in regards to their language and tone inciting flaming, not because their opinion differed from the topic at hand. I highly doubt anyone on the moderation team is banging a drum for censorship, but when communication isn't effective, people get the wrong idea before they start crying out ignorant "free speech" platitudes.

In the end, I don't particularly have a problem with the moderation in regards to warnings, infractions, and the policies thereof. This is a privately run board that has no obligation--and indeed, should not have any--to guaranteeing the freedoms of its users. I've yet to see an issue where someone was warned or banned for the nature of their opinion as opposed to how they presented it. So long as that doesn't become an issue, and as long as efforts are made to remove any incertitude from the possibilities of how the rules are interpreted things seem dandy.

Khadan · **05-19-2015, 01:33 PM**

(05-15-2015, 12:34 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:
Quote:I understand all the rules of the legit talk thread, and will obey them. If I am found to have broken any of the rules, I will refrain from posting in the thread for a week. I understand that the purpose of this thread is to try and maintain discussion in good faith -lazily quoting but there it is

The first question I will ask is:
What do you think of this thread? Do you agree with what I think has happened in the RPC community? Was the RPC community always this way?

I think it's a good thread in intent, sure. I also believe that no topic is 'sacred' or 'off limits' because of the innocuous chance of 'offense'. I will hold a discussion with anyone on anything, at any time because that is my right to do so and 'censoring' discussions don't help anyone or any situation, ever; even the most heinous topics are up for debate, discussion, and ultimately skepticism.Â

So when you mention if I and others agree on what has happened to the RPC community? Well I suppose so, to a degree. Though this isn't any different than anywhere else; this isn't unique to the RPC. You see this a lot on tumblr, of course, and other online communities. Sanitizing discussions, hugbox cliques, passive aggressive behavior, and the general nature of 'offense/outrage culture' lend people to believe that they have a right to never be offended (they don't), and that their feelings are valid reasons for ceasing a discussion (they aren't). Of course the opposite to this is if the site rules DO state that such things are the case, which as far as I know aren't the case though given that we're about to experience an ownership/moderatorship/adminship change here, things might change.

Was it always this way? I can't honestly say one way or the other. I can say that what I've observed is that the moderatorship of the RPC is and has been far too involved in the RPC's general discussions. My personal experiences moderating an equally sized community in the past for TESO have shown me that the more involved the moderators are the more unhappy people are with the moderators. Tone policing, nitpicking every word looking for 'offenses', and getting into petty arguments with the users do not endear a community to you, your authority, or whatever order you're trying to maintain; just because someone reports something and/or is 'offended' does not mean it warrants action.

On the nature of gifs etc, I think people kneejerk too hard on them as if they are some kind of giant lump of feces in the middle of their driveway that they're about to step in. It's kind of ridiculous to fixate on the use of images rather than focus on, say, the reason and intention behind why people use these images. To me it's like using vulgar language. IRL I swear pretty much every hour of every day because to me language is just language; it's only 'offensive' if employed offensively. However do I swear to people at work? Of course not unless I'm absolutely confident that it won't get me in trouble, of course. The difference being that a workplace IS a sanitized area for many reasons, some legitimate, others not. People tend to use gifs and images as a sort of passive aggressive caltrops, on average. That's pretty shitty and shouldn't be condoned. If, however, an image compliments what you're saying and is on the topic of whatever you're responding to? That's fine. Just like swearing; if the language fits the narrative then good. If not, then you're just being a tool.

McBeefâ„¢ · **05-19-2015, 01:57 PM**

(05-19-2015, 12:21 PM)Nakoli Chalahko Wrote:
(05-18-2015, 03:26 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: So a side question, among the other one.

What do you think the place of image macros, reaction gifs, etc, have in discussions? Do you think they should be banned? Only allowed in certain threads? Allowed in all threads?

I'm personally of the opinion they shouldn't be allowed except in certain types of threads, that they tend to just disrupt a discussion without adding anything of value.

However they are fun, and I like seeing them in lighter hearted threads.

What do you think? Obviously they are frowned upon by the mods and the new updated rules.
Quote:I understand all the rules of the legit talk thread, and will obey them. If I am found to have broken any of the rules, I will refrain from posting in the thread for a week. I understand that the purpose of this thread is to try and maintain discussion in good faith
I would like to expand upon this, if I may?

I believe, as said above that image macro's can serve a humorous addition to a post. If they are the addition, not the core content. Which is what I believe the spirit of the rules is.

Quote:
Spurious off-topic posts, including meme images and patent nonsense

Creating posts and/or topics whose purpose/title is sarcastic, belittling, or intentionally provocative in a negative manner (i.e., "baiting").

I would say that my interpretation is if your entire post can be summed up just by the use of said meme, then is it worth posting? It doesn't add anything to the discussion. If however you have a response thought out and written out, and said meme adds emphasis that is pertinent to your response, then its all gravy.

that is however, my opinion on them.

I think rules like these sound reasonable on paper, but then you're going to get back and forth arguing over every post. I think their should be a 3 tier system as Nero said in the other thread, but depending on forum. That way everyone is on the same page.

Ie, just as an example:
IC Forum - Banned
RP Discussion - At your risk (Can post, but you have no recourse if it's warned)
Off Topic - Do whatever, so long as it's not spamming.

Again though the permanent ban acts as a de-facto censor, and it also makes people react to warnings more strongly.

Also Nero, I understand what you're saying, but the permanent ban just puts everything in a different context for me.

Before me getting a warning was just sort of a finger wag, and I'd sit back and go 'Fair enough' and think about it. Now though I don't view it as a warning, I view it as 1/10 of the way towards a ban, and a "We don't want you here."

I find it hard to describe how disheartening that rule is, and I really will not stop campaigning against it. There are specific kinds of people (in my opinion) we don't want on these forums. Everyone knows what that would look like, and I don't think people posting image macros in the wrong places, or getting snippy every once in a while qualify.

Verad · **05-19-2015, 02:17 PM**

(05-19-2015, 01:57 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: Before me getting a warning was just sort of a finger wag, and I'd sit back and go 'Fair enough' and think about it. Now though I don't view it as a warning, I view it as 1/10 of the way towards a ban, and a "We don't want you here."

I find it hard to describe how disheartening that rule is, and I really will not stop campaigning against it. There are specific kinds of people (in my opinion) we don't want on these forums. Everyone knows what that would look like, and I don't think people posting image macros in the wrong places, or getting snippy every once in a while qualify.

I think that this requires reading quite a lot into the attitudes of the mods and the nature of what reports are made and why, along with a perhaps not-so-healthy amount of persecution complex.

McBeefâ„¢ · **05-19-2015, 02:52 PM**

(05-19-2015, 02:17 PM)Verad Wrote:
(05-19-2015, 01:57 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: Before me getting a warning was just sort of a finger wag, and I'd sit back and go 'Fair enough' and think about it. Now though I don't view it as a warning, I view it as 1/10 of the way towards a ban, and a "We don't want you here."

I find it hard to describe how disheartening that rule is, and I really will not stop campaigning against it. There are specific kinds of people (in my opinion) we don't want on these forums. Everyone knows what that would look like, and I don't think people posting image macros in the wrong places, or getting snippy every once in a while qualify.

I think that this requires reading quite a lot into the attitudes of the mods and the nature of what reports are made and why, along with a perhaps not-so-healthy amount of persecution complex.

So still, trying to keep with the 30 minutes between posts and responses. I would appreciate if people could follow this.

As for your post, I don't agree. I think it's a very silly system, and I don't think one has to read overmuch into it to think that.

Posting hardcore pornography is a 2 warning item.

Off topic posting, an insult, etc, are 1.

I don't think two image macros are equal to someone posting hardcore pornography in a thread. I just do not think they are equal on any scale. And I dislike this system because it makes minor things on the same scale as big things.

I could post pornography in a thread every other month, ruin peoples day, and possibly get someone fired if it comes up at the wrong time at work.

Yet that is roughly the same amount of 'wrong' as posting an image macro in the wrong place once a month.

It places all infractions on the same scale, when I don't believe they are. I don't think I need to have a persecution complex to come to that decision.

***Nero*** · **05-19-2015, 03:21 PM**

(05-19-2015, 02:52 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: ....it places all infractions on the same scale, when I don't believe they are. I don't think I need to have a persecution complex to come to that decision.

I'm sure it's been suggested before, but there's a pretty simple solution to this, isn't there? Three tiers: warnings, infractions, and bans. <x> number of warnings in <x> number of weeks results in one infraction. <x> number of infractions in <x> number of months is a temp ban.Â

This way, minor violations like meme posting or overly aggressive behaviour go with warnings that, ultimately, don't contribute to bans, the idea being that a freakish number of total warnings (say, forty or fifty in the span of four months) are required to actually temp ban through them. This also allows moderators to curb certain hostile behaviours without that person actually feeling as if they'd been punished without due. If a person is consistently misbehaving then the system still allows for a ban with enough accumulation.

More severe violations result in direct infractions that would operate like our current system. Say for example, ten infractions in four weeks (as is the current policy). Or something similar.

Yes, no, maybe?

McBeefâ„¢ · **05-19-2015, 04:14 PM**

(05-19-2015, 03:21 PM)Nero Wrote:
(05-19-2015, 02:52 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: ....it places all infractions on the same scale, when I don't believe they are. I don't think I need to have a persecution complex to come to that decision.

I'm sure it's been suggested before, but there's a pretty simple solution to this, isn't there? Three tiers: warnings, infractions, and bans. <x> number of warnings in <x> number of weeks results in one infraction. <x> number of infractions in <x> number of months is a temp ban.Â

This way, minor violations like meme posting or overly aggressive behaviour go with warnings that, ultimately, don't contribute to bans, the idea being that a freakish number of total warnings (say, forty or fifty in the span of four months) are required to actually temp ban through them. This also allows moderators to curb certain hostile behaviours without that person actually feeling as if they'd been punished without due. If a person is consistently misbehaving then the system still allows for a ban with enough accumulation.

More severe violations result in direct infractions that would operate like our current system. Say for example, ten infractions in four weeks (as is the current policy). Or something similar.

Yes, no, maybe?

I would be very pleased with something like this. I would be ok with a /very/ small number of serious infractions (Say 3 or 4) causing a permanent ban. If someone does one of the current moderate infractions, it essentially shows a conscious willingness to fuck up a the forums.

However the smaller ones are more questions of propriety and tone, and I think it's better to use them to nudge people in the right direction. Currently there is just a huge disconnect between the level of disruption a behavior has on the forum, and the way it is treated by the rules.

I could very easily agree with something like the following, if warnings expired every 2 weeks..

1 Warning = Warning
2 Warnings = 6 Hour ban
3 Warnings = 24 Hour Ban
4 Warnings = 72 Hour Ban
5 Warnings = Serious Infraction and a week ban.

And only the serious infractions count towards permabans.

Edit: I actually really like short term bans. I think a lot of drama in the forums comes from being caught up in the moment, and a 6 hour time out for someone getting rowdy is usually doing them a favor. As they'll have calmed down by the time the ban expires.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (4): « Previous 1 2 3 4

The Talk Thread (Please Read the Rules)

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes