Liberal police state

[Sailor July]

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]

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]

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.

 

 

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

[Brynhilde]

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. 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]

*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.

[111]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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: 

(1) Image macros, .gifs, and memes without substance are not explicitly banned from the RPC. 

(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.

[Melkire]

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 enforce.

 

The judgment was consistent with the letter of the law.

The judgment was inconsistent with the spirit of the law.

 

I'll own up to that.

 

Still gonna push for better language for the rules.

[111]

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 enforce.

 

The judgment was consistent with the letter of the law.

The judgment was inconsistent with the spirit of the law.

 

I'll own up to that.

 

Still gonna push for better language for the rules.

 

Can this possibly be something of a discussion? We're all basically in agreement, that in certain threads and contexts macros are fun, in others they are disrespectful.

 

The trick is differentiating the two, as Nero and others have said.

[Flashhelix]

In a perfect world, grown adults wouldn't need to worry that a picture of Ned Flanders would destroy their discussion about internet pretendymen

[Dravus]

Moderation is rarely an easy task and with new rules set in place it's going to take time for the ideal middle ground to be reached. With that in mind I'm more than willing to cut the moderators quite a bit of slack.

[K'nahli]

The issue is not explicitly about the use of image macros. That's missing the bigger picture. The only reason that the moderators felt that this was something that needed to be enforced was because it had become a bit of an issue at the time where numerous posts consisting of little, if not nothing other than a meme image, were being posted and cluttering up topics with irrelevant trash. Overlooking that, meme images can quite easily be perceived as a quick and easy method of making a snarky or passive-aggressive remark without actually contributing anything to the topic itself - all while floating under the guise of a post that holds mild relevance to the ongoing discussion.

 

With the newly-released rule set, the goal was to heighten consistency among moderator actions and reduce the extent to which each moderator had to make an independent judgement call - something which can vary quite a bit, even should most of us share similar sentiments and opinions at the best of times. As such, macro images were decidedly treated as a warnable offence in situations where it was deemed as non-content, and for the sake of remaining neutral on all levels, were likely moderated a little more mercilessly than any one of us would have particularly favoured.

 

It might also be worth mentioning that any, one warning issued by a moderator can quite easily be an action which they had really wished to avoid entirely. It's not simply an issue of "Was this inappropriate/breaching the rules?". Nine times out of ten, posts that get warned are lingering in a grey area where one person might consider something that was said as a harsh but ultimately harmless voicing of opinion, while another might see it as something that is heedlessly careless and something to be made an example out of... to make a point of the matter that such inconsiderate behaviour, which repeatedly tends to toe the line of what's tolerable and what isn't, is simply not something that should be enabled.

 

And just as a reminder, warnings and even bans can be appealed if you feel that it was not a justified call or if the moderator in question is missing some important detail that could potentially change their perspective of the matter. I don't believe that any one of us are too proud to admit when we've made a mistake nor to revoke a decision if hindsight proves to reveal a wiser course of action. We don't claim to know best for every single situation, we can only work towards being as fair and reasonable as possible for each of them.

 

The rules are in place to try and keep the forum civil and a place where users, both existing and those yet to join, can happily be a part of - not to spoil anyone's fun or keep the place under an arbitrarily, strict rule. Anyone and everyone is very welcome to have an open dialogue with us about matters that they find concerning. As has been stated, it's not our goal to make things difficult or unpleasant for anyone - be it through strict enforcement of certain rules or excessive leniency with people whom push the boundaries of reputable, social conduct.

 

 

Now, with all of that said, I don't like the nature in which this topic was created because it directly violated the first draft of a specific rule before it had been amended to be worded differently, but because it has become something of a legitimate topic I will go along and contribute all the same, but you are being warned now to not abuse the opportunity and come out with snarky or passive-aggressive remarks as it is in some peoples' tendencies.

 

If you choose to exercise a blunt and very direct manner when you post, then be sure that you are prepared to be (mis)interpreted for bearing unnecessary animosity and potentially earn yourself avoidable infractions.

[111]

 

If you choose to exercise a blunt and very direct manner when you post, then be sure that you are prepared to be (mis)interpreted for bearing unnecessary animosity and potentially earn yourself avoidable infractions.

 

And if you earn 10 of them you'll be permanently banned :c. So the only way to not get warnings is to be vague and indirect?

[LiadansWhisper]

It might also be worth mentioning that any, one warning issued by a moderator can quite easily be an action which they had really wished to avoid entirely. It's not simply an issue of "Was this inappropriate/breaching the rules?". Nine times out of ten, posts that get warned are lingering in a grey area where one person might consider something that was said as a harsh but ultimately harmless voicing of opinion, while another might see it as something that is heedlessly careless and something to be made an example out of... to make a point of the matter that such inconsiderate behaviour, which repeatedly tends to toe the line of what's tolerable and what isn't, is simply not something that should be enabled.

 

Shouldn't the moderators, then, be erring on the side of believing the best about the person in question, instead of erring on the side of believing the worst about said poster?

 

If you choose to exercise a blunt and very direct manner when you post, then be sure that you are prepared to be (mis)interpreted for bearing unnecessary animosity and potentially earn yourself avoidable infractions.

 

 

I really...really really...really...really think this is an unfortunate position to take.  Yes, people who are blunt and direct in their posts can absolutely be misread, but I think it is a mistake to make the poster solely responsible for other people misreading what they're saying.  People can read anything into anything, and your position is really open to abuse.

 

If I don't like someone, 9 times out of 10, I'm going to read even a relatively harmless post by that person as being something awful.  If I like someone, short of them going off and spouting cuss words 3 ways from Sunday and calling people names, I'm probably not going to see anything they say as "bad."  Because I like them, and I know they wouldn't mean it in a bad way.

 

Telling people they cannot be blunt or honest is just...it's a bad road to take.  Saying that you're going to base infractions based on the tone you are reading into the post itself is incredibly subjective and will probably end up being really unfair to a lot of people.

 

If that's not what you meant, I apologize, but that's how it's coming across from what I saw in your post.

[Edda]

 

If you choose to exercise a blunt and very direct manner when you post, then be sure that you are prepared to be (mis)interpreted for bearing unnecessary animosity and potentially earn yourself avoidable infractions.

 

And if you earn 10 of them you'll be permanently banned :c. So the only way to not get warnings is to be vague and indirect?

I was wondering the same thing myself. Being blunt and using a dry sense of humor always has a time and a place, despite not always being a bad/aggressive thing. And yet, it seems like passive aggression is the preferred modus operandi here - at least that is how it seems to me. Perhaps it is because bluntness is much easier to detect, and easier to misconstrue as an attack.

[LiadansWhisper]

 

If you choose to exercise a blunt and very direct manner when you post, then be sure that you are prepared to be (mis)interpreted for bearing unnecessary animosity and potentially earn yourself avoidable infractions.

 

And if you earn 10 of them you'll be permanently banned :c. So the only way to not get warnings is to be vague and indirect?

 

It would seem that being passive aggressive is preferred over honesty.  I mean, I don't think that's what she intended to say, but that's kind of what I'm getting out of it.  

[Mercer]

I'm personally shocked that there are ten strikes for behavior that people can take as rude or offensive. Past groups I've been a part of were three strikes.

 

It's not about being passive aggressive or bold, it's about speaking in ways that can be taken as offensive. There should be a decorum of respect when speaking to one another so that people in the community aren't being offended or driven out.

[LiadansWhisper]

I'm personally shocked that there are ten strikes for behavior that people can take as rude or offensive. Past groups I've been a part of were three strikes.

 

It's not about being passive aggressive or bold, it's about speaking in ways that can be taken as offensive. There should be a decorum of respect when speaking to one another so that people in the community aren't being offended or driven out.

 

Okay, sure.

 

But what offends me may not offend you.  And what offends you may not offend me.

 

How, precisely, are we to decide what is actually offensive and what is not?

 

For that matter, with some people, simple disagreement, no matter how politely stated, is offensive.  Are we to bow and scrape to people who can't deal with the fact that not everyone is going to agree with them?

 

You can be civil, and yet still not be polite.  In most forums I have been a part of, civility is the rule, not politeness.  Civility is much, much easier to distinguish, and allows for people to get offended over things like disagreements without disorder breaking out.

[Mercer]

I'm personally shocked that there are ten strikes for behavior that people can take as rude or offensive. Past groups I've been a part of were three strikes.

 

It's not about being passive aggressive or bold, it's about speaking in ways that can be taken as offensive. There should be a decorum of respect when speaking to one another so that people in the community aren't being offended or driven out.

 

Okay, sure.

 

But what offends me may not offend you.  And what offends you may not offend me.

 

How, precisely, are we to decide what is actually offensive and what is not?

 

For that matter, with some people, simple disagreement, no matter how politely stated, is offensive.  Are we to bow and scrape to people who can't deal with the fact that not everyone is going to agree with them?

 

You can be civil, and yet still not be polite.  In most forums I have been a part of, civility is the rule, not politeness.  Civility is much, much easier to distinguish, and allows for people to get offended over things like disagreements without disorder breaking out.

 

Unfortunately I haven't held the feeling that the forums have been civil for some time. To be clear, the term civil refers to 'Sufficiently observing or befitting accepted social usages; polite.' Civil and Polite are synonyms.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that there is an air of hostility that has prevailed the community for some time. This thread only perpetuates that feeling. There has been so much picking and digging at a rule that is supposed to make the forums more approachable. It's been ridiculed, even as the rule has been stated to be remedied. It's a perfect example of how things have spiraled in the last few weeks.

 

I've only just returned to the community and the bile I see makes me question ever posting again. I'm not the only one, we've seen members older than me and much more notable already leaving. The community is fracturing at the seams at it is. It's tragic. But at the same time, this place isn't constructive to what I want for RP anymore.

 

I've derailed myself. Point is, civil discussion is polite discussion. The best way to uphold it is by following the rules to the letter and if not, then warning up to ban. I don't see what the problem with that is, unless it comes down to not wanting to self censor.

[111]

unless it comes down to not wanting to self censor.

 

Ding ding ding ding.

 

We have a winner.

[Aya]

Ridiculousness and silliness.  Our moderators do the absolute best they can.  They're wonderful people, volunteer people doing the best they can to carry out a set of expectations based upon some sense of what the community wants.  It will vary from person-to-person, that simply can't be helped!

 

Give them a break.  Just get along, sheesh, its not that complicated.

[LiadansWhisper]

 

 

 

Unfortunately I haven't held the feeling that the forums have been civil for some time. To be clear, the term civil refers to 'Sufficiently observing or befitting accepted social usages; polite.' Civil and Polite are synonyms.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that there is an air of hostility that has prevailed the community for some time. This thread only perpetuates that feeling. There has been so much picking and digging at a rule that is supposed to make the forums more approachable. It's been ridiculed, even as the rule has been stated to be remedied. It's a perfect example of how things have spiraled in the last few weeks.

 

I've only just returned to the community and the bile I see makes me question ever posting again. I'm not the only one, we've seen members older than me and much more notable already leaving. The community is fracturing at the seams at it is. It's tragic. But at the same time, this place isn't constructive to what I want for RP anymore.

 

I've derailed myself. Point is, civil discussion is polite discussion. The best way to uphold it is by following the rules to the letter and if not, then warning up to ban. I don't see what the problem with that is, unless it comes down to not wanting to self censor.

 

I remain of the opinion that discouraging honesty and encouraging passive aggression is the wrong tactic to take.  Hell, it might honestly be better if people got their issues out into the open instead of making snide, backhanded comments about people (comments so apparently neutral that they wouldn't be infracted).

 

I self-censor all the time.  I'm pretty sure other people do, for a variety of reasons.  Self-censoring isn't what we're talking about here.  I don't think most people would argue that people should be able to engage in things like blatant name-calling and shaming of other players.  Naming names and all that.  But I do think that telling people they can't be blunt at all or they'll be infracted is the wrong direction to go in.  You can be blunt and honest without engaging in name-calling and without shaming someone.  You can be civil, even if you come across as harsh.