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

Dogberry · **05-18-2015, 04:51 PM**

(05-18-2015, 04:44 PM)Melkire Wrote:
(05-18-2015, 04:34 PM)Dogberry Wrote: Osric, you still have not addressed that every time a macro has been posted in a non-meme thread, but was relevant to the material in the thread, a warning has been issued.

This is not the case.

http://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/showthread....#pid182218

http://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/showthread....#pid183814

Two recent examples.

Both of those cases had text to go with them. So what you're saying is, you can not just post a macro. It must have text? What if there's simply nothing else to say? Who are you to determine the depths to what our posts must contain? Each post must contain x amount of discussion or be off topic? Sometimes a well placed macro just sums up all you have to say. If it's not meant to hurt someone or be disruptive, why is that against the rules?

Dogberry · **05-18-2015, 04:53 PM**

(05-18-2015, 04:51 PM)Unnamed Mercenary Wrote:
(05-18-2015, 04:48 PM)Dogberry Wrote:
(05-18-2015, 04:40 PM)Kellach Woods Wrote: It's far easier to be a dismissive asshole who has no consideration for others' enjoyment of the community in .gif form than in text form.

That sounds like a challenge! I accept!

All kidding aside, I would say that's what they are in theory, but what I think the problem here is with the interpretation of the law by certain moderators rather than the law itself. What seems fine to many might seem over the line for one mod, but the mod's interpretation will win out. Just as the mob should not be in charge, those in charge are not infallible, either.

Doesn't someone still usually have to report a post for the mods to actually look at it?

I wouldn't imagine if the mod just happens to see it in the course of reading/posting in that thread.

Melkire · **05-18-2015, 04:56 PM**

(05-18-2015, 04:51 PM)Dogberry Wrote:
(05-18-2015, 04:44 PM)Melkire Wrote:
(05-18-2015, 04:34 PM)Dogberry Wrote: Osric, you still have not addressed that every time a macro has been posted in a non-meme thread, but was relevant to the material in the thread, a warning has been issued.

This is not the case.

http://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/showthread....#pid182218

http://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/showthread....#pid183814

Two recent examples.

Both of those cases had text to go with them. So what you're saying is, you can not just post a macro. It must have text? What if there's simply nothing else to say? Who are you to determine the depths to what our posts must contain? Each post must contain x amount of discussion or be off topic? Sometimes a well placed macro just sums up all you have to say.

It clearly shouldn't be, so we'll rewrite the rule(s) in question.

(05-18-2015, 04:51 PM)Dogberry Wrote: If it's not meant to hurt someone or be disruptive, why is that against the rules?

(05-18-2015, 04:48 PM)Dogberry Wrote: All kidding aside, I would say that's what they are in theory, but what I think the problem here is with the interpretation of the law by certain moderators rather than the law itself. What seems fine to many might seem over the line for one mod, but the mod's interpretation will win out. Just as the mob should not be in charge, those in charge are not infallible, either.

I didn't issue a warning. I made that judgment call.

Am I being taken to task for being lenient and not issuing a warning for a post that clearly didn't deserve one? Or is the issue in the language I employed in my PM title / PM content? I'd like to know. I'm still leaning towards "overreaction" if it's the former.

Dogberry · **05-18-2015, 04:58 PM**

(05-18-2015, 04:56 PM)Melkire Wrote:
(05-18-2015, 04:51 PM)Dogberry Wrote:
(05-18-2015, 04:44 PM)Melkire Wrote:
(05-18-2015, 04:34 PM)Dogberry Wrote: Osric, you still have not addressed that every time a macro has been posted in a non-meme thread, but was relevant to the material in the thread, a warning has been issued.

This is not the case.

http://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/showthread....#pid182218

http://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/showthread....#pid183814

Two recent examples.

Both of those cases had text to go with them. So what you're saying is, you can not just post a macro. It must have text? What if there's simply nothing else to say? Who are you to determine the depths to what our posts must contain? Each post must contain x amount of discussion or be off topic? Sometimes a well placed macro just sums up all you have to say.

It clearly shouldn't be, so we'll rewrite the rule(s) in question.

(05-18-2015, 04:51 PM)Dogberry Wrote: If it's not meant to hurt someone or be disruptive, why is that against the rules?

(05-18-2015, 04:48 PM)Dogberry Wrote: All kidding aside, I would say that's what they are in theory, but what I think the problem here is with the interpretation of the law by certain moderators rather than the law itself. What seems fine to many might seem over the line for one mod, but the mod's interpretation will win out. Just as the mob should not be in charge, those in charge are not infallible, either.

I didn't issue a warning. I made that judgment call.

Am I being taken to task for being lenient and not issuing a warning for a post that clearly didn't deserve one? Or is the issue in the language I employed in my PM title / PM content? I'd like to know. I'm still leaning towards "overreaction" if it's the former.

I'm taking you to task for making it an issue at all. You could have just said nothing and not disrupted the thread. You didn't. I take issue with that.

McBeefâ„¢ · **05-18-2015, 05:00 PM**

(05-18-2015, 04:48 PM)Dogberry Wrote:
(05-18-2015, 04:40 PM)Kellach Woods Wrote: It's far easier to be a dismissive asshole who has no consideration for others' enjoyment of the community in .gif form than in text form.

That sounds like a challenge! I accept!

All kidding aside, I would say that's what they are in theory, but what I think the problem here is with the interpretation of the law by certain moderators rather than the law itself. What seems fine to many might seem over the line for one mod, but the mod's interpretation will win out. Just as the mob should not be in charge, those in charge are not infallible, either.

Perhaps we could just have the forum/topic determine if Macros are allowed? Maybe the OP can decide?

Again, I wouldn't care about the warnings, if it didn't mean each one put you 10% closer to a permaban. Posting one off topic image macro a month will get you banned permanently, just seems silly.

Especially because /every/ image macro/gif has basically been considered off topic.

Sailor July · **05-18-2015, 05:02 PM**

If people have such an issue with gifs, why not let each OP decide if gifs are welcome or not in their thread? Then, if someone does use a gif, then they get a warning. I dunno. Just a thought.

Mercer · **05-18-2015, 05:02 PM**

(05-18-2015, 05:00 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:
(05-18-2015, 04:48 PM)Dogberry Wrote:
(05-18-2015, 04:40 PM)Kellach Woods Wrote: It's far easier to be a dismissive asshole who has no consideration for others' enjoyment of the community in .gif form than in text form.

That sounds like a challenge! I accept!

All kidding aside, I would say that's what they are in theory, but what I think the problem here is with the interpretation of the law by certain moderators rather than the law itself. What seems fine to many might seem over the line for one mod, but the mod's interpretation will win out. Just as the mob should not be in charge, those in charge are not infallible, either.

Perhaps we could just have the forum/topic determine if Macros are allowed? Maybe the OP can decide?

Again, I wouldn't care about the warnings, if it didn't mean each one put you 10% closer to a permaban. Posting one off topic image macro a month will get you banned permanently, just seems silly.

Especially because /every/ image macro/gif has basically been considered off topic.

If they are considered off topic in the first place, I'm confused why they would ever be allowed.

Melkire · **05-18-2015, 05:06 PM**

(05-18-2015, 04:58 PM)Dogberry Wrote: I'm taking you to task for making it an issue at all. You could have just said nothing and not disrupted the thread. You didn't. I take issue with that.

Some transparency is in order, then.

[Image: JmnjhKz.png]

Please tell me where in this PM I disrupted the thread.

Bryn · **05-18-2015, 05:06 PM**

The issue wasn't the language used, Osric. You very friendly about it and you made it very clear that you weren't issuing a formal warning and had chosen instead to give me a, in your words, 'Pre-Warning Notice'. I appreciated that you may not have wanted to send the PM at all, which is why I put extra effort into articulating my frustration respectfully in my reply.

Trouble is, that's still a warning. It's just not a formal one. It's a warning of a forthcoming warning unless something is acted on. Tongue

And that feels pretty bad when it's for having good-natured fun with friends in your own thread.

I appreciate that the rule is being discussed by the mods and I look forward to seeing any changes made. As an FC leader myself, I know the concern of holding everyone to the same standards and being fair, which is what I think you were doing. That said and as you know, I do feel those standards are unduly strict, so I'm pleased they're being examined by the mod team. Thanks, guys.

Kage · **05-18-2015, 05:07 PM**

*Please don't post about things that have been already evidenced as not true/fact. Two examples have already been shown that certain images in context have been fine.

Edit fuck phones.
from what I can tell, Bryn's image post isn't something I would report for or disagree with. I don't think it would lead to a warning but I may be wrong.

I think posting a DIS GON BE GUD image or the gif of Homer's dad walking in and out of a room would be reported. I would report them. No place for that.

McBeefâ„¢ · **05-18-2015, 05:21 PM**

I would say on the side, that Osric you're kind of losing your cool here, and maybe you should take a few minutes to dip out, reseat the magic admin hat, and come back.

I know everyone is heated, but this is heading towards angry closed thread zone.

Melkire · **05-18-2015, 05:24 PM**

(05-18-2015, 05:21 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: I would say on the side, that Osric you're kind of losing your cool here, and maybe you should take a few minutes to dip out, reseat the magic admin hat, and come back.

I know everyone is heated, but this is heading towards angry closed thread zone.

Tone in text. Always difficult. I'm calm, but I'll step away.

Edvyn · **05-18-2015, 06:07 PM**

just you watch guys im gonna get perma'd for meme-ing too hard and when that happens im going to become the meme martyr or something

the e-tomb will read:
there was a shitposter
by the name of ed
he mentioned the simpsons
and ended up dead

i already did my bitching in private so im not gonna bitch here but something something police state something mods bad something memes blah blah save ned slanders 2015 yak yak image macros something nonsense something user was banned for this post

the 10 jokes = permaban rule is the main problem here (unless you belong to the school of thought which says edvyn is the problem here)

Nako Vesh · **05-18-2015, 06:15 PM**

(05-18-2015, 04:14 PM)Seriphyn Wrote: This is not just a website, it's a community, right? Of real people who often invest real time and real emotion into said community.

I can't apologize for calling out those in charge of the community for their decisions. Accountability is part of responsibility, right?

I myself am not comfortable with the idea that I have to 'watch what I post' here. This place belongs to everyone.

What exactly is the problem about being mindful of what you post? I don't see the problem with trying to insure people make thoughtful posts rather than a deluge of sarcastic epithets and memes my mom uses on Facebook.

***Nero*** · **05-18-2015, 07:00 PM**

(05-18-2015, 05:06 PM)Bryn Wrote: The issue wasn't the language used, Osric. You were very friendly about it...etc.

Trouble is, that's still a warning. It's just not a formal one. It's a warning of a forthcoming warning unless something is acted on.Â And that feels pretty bad when it's for having good-natured fun with friends in your own thread.

The problem is context, and the reading thereof.

Are image macros, gifs, and other "meme" inserts without substance completely banned from the RPC? Past evidence and precedence points to the answer being "no". In addition, the rules do not explicitly ban the usage of image macros, gifs, memes, etc. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Image macros and gif posts without substance are appropriate in certain situations. The "Describe your relationship with a gif" thread was cited as an environment in which low-effort posting--that is, the posting of images with minimal content--is appropriate.

Conversely, discussion threads and question topics are circumstances in which the same low-effort posting--posts that lack in content that fail to add to the topic or discussion--is inappropriate. Low-effort posts that do not contribute to the topic or derail the topic are not allowed, as per the rules. These are the posts that receive a warning. The post that was responsible for starting this thread is cited as an example of a post that did not meaningfully contribute in any fashion to the thread at hand, and was thus in breach of site rules regarding off-topic posts and images.

So, we've established three important facts:Â
(1) Image macros, .gifs, and memes without substance are not explicitly banned from the RPC.Â
(2) Image macros, .gifs, and memes without substance are permitted to be posted within the appropriate unambiguous contexts. Examples: joke threads, image threads.
(3) Image macros, .gifs, and memes without meaningful substance are not permitted in all other contexts except for those that are clearly defined by (2).

So what's the problem?

In Bryn's case above, her thread should have been read as being (2), that is, a lighthearted "fun" and "joke" thread in which image macros, .gifs, and memes should be considered appropriate and not in breach of the sites rules. The problem is that it wasn't. Bryn's thread was unambiguous in its intentions, tone, and environment, and thus, in accordance with (2), image macros, .gifs, and meme posts that lack in content should have been permitted. However, the context of the thread was misread, and thus a private warning was issued. The problem with the warning was not the action of warning itself, but what the action implied: "There are no longer any appropriate topics or situations in which image macros, .gifs, and meme posts without substance will be permitted . Thus, the rules are being incorrectly enforced, and as a result I am concerned about the possible abuse of enforcement in the future."

In summary:

By requesting more substance in a post that required none, a judgment that is considered inconsistent with the rules of the RPC was made. To resolve this, either the rules should be made completely unambiguous regarding low-effort posting and the banning thereof, with appropriate examples, or the judgment should be acknowledged as inconsistent with the rules it was intended to follow [edit] AND/OR the environments in which low-effort posting is permitted need to be clearly defined.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Thread Closed Pages (9): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Next » Jump to page:

Liberal police state

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