Tentative Rules Thread (FINISHED, DO NOT POST SUGGESTIONS HERE)

[Vexarian]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

Well, I think we can all agree that a Necro, is really only a Necro when it's unconstructive. It's entirely constructive to perform CPR on a utilitarian thread such as an Image Thread or a Recommendations Thread or anything of the like, or to add actual content to a more content-friendly thread.

 

[ArchfiendRai]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

I know. I was pointing it out because the actual guideline was too rigid. Who knows. We could end up voting in a mod who would follow it to the letter, ya know?

 

[Ninsaneja]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

I'll update it. You want more leeway on "for-fun" threads?

 

[ArchfiendRai]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

Less of that and more "We have been eagerly awaiting an update for this post. If you post in it after, say, three weeks, you better be the goddamn author with a goddamn update" threads.

So pretty much, I'd only count it as a true Necro if it's a story thread.

Just to make it a tad more specific.

 

[Vexarian]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

I could really never see any harm in reviving say... "Funny Naruto Pictures", or "Your Daily... Thing!", or any of the other threads that don't have an actual specific topic and are more general.

There's a difference between that, and say... any given story thread, or LR's "The Omniverse" thread, things of that nature.

 

[toraneko]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

Category 1: Undesirable Posts
I'll go with "Minimal". Necroing gets seriously irritating in some cases, but those cases are rare enough that leniency should be the first, second, and third option. Off-topic posting should be discouraged, but not enough to put up the "no fun allowed" sign.

Thread revival by the thread's original author should never be considered a necro.

Category 2: Author Rights
Medium. No further clarification.

Category 3: Personal Attacks and Racism
Going with the first option here. Leave the potential hurt and offense in the hands of the target; if they complain, action may be taken accordingly, but not before.

Category Four: Cursing etc.
Option 3 all the way. We're all adults here, and if we're not, we shouldn't be here at all. Keeping certain graphic depictions to the Restricted section is a given, though, and I'm fine with that much, but only in the case of flagrant porn or other similarly adults-only content.

Category Five: Copyrights etc.
Option 1 sounds good to me.

(We seem to be missing Category Six.)

Category Seven: Links
I prefer Option 1, but I'm willing to nudge downwards to Option 3 if it seems appropriate.

Category Eight: Tags
Option 1. I see no reason not to tag het, even if the TFF community isn't exactly friendly towards yaoi most of the time.

Mod Accountability:
Preferably option 3 (Super Open), but option 2 if that proves impracticable.

Sock Puppets:
Never acceptable.

Thread Locations:
Alternative 3 seems the only proper one.

Advertising:
I'm in favor of zero advertising by users for any reason.

Appeals:
Alternative 3. Transparency goes both ways.

Punishments:
Medium strength please.

 

[Jakkun]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

Perhaps we should separate out necro to be different for story previews and pretty much anything else. As it was said, a preview getting necroed brings much rage, while some other thread generally is a meh, whatever type thing.

 

[bastur2]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

Category ONE: Undesirable Posts(Threadjacks and useless Posts) and Necros - Medium

Special Case Authors can always post in their own story threads. Otherwise, posting in a thread that is too old is a necro.

CATEGORY TWO: Author Rights -High

CATEGORY THREE: Personal attacks and racism - "Guys havin' a beer."

Catergory Foury: Medium/RSP
Category Five: Attribution, Copyright ALTERNATIVE 1

Category seven: Links - Informative

Category 8: All tags

Moderator Accountability : Open

Sock Puppets : NO

Thread Locations: Quick

Spambots.: No.

Advertising: Low-key only

Appeals :2


PUNISHMENTS :Harsh

 

[Hardcore Heathen]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

I really think we're getting too complicated here. We're designing rules for a fanfiction forum, not a state legislature. So I'd like to propose something simpler. I'm sure some of you will recognize these rules:

1) Do not upload, post, discuss, request, or link to, anything that violates local or United States law. This will be severely punished and strictly enforced.

2) Do not post the following: Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, macro image replies, indecipherable text (example: "lol u tk him 2da bar|?"), or grotesque ("guro").

3) Forums outside the Restricted Section are to be considered "work safe." Violators may be temporarily banned and their posts removed. Note: Spoilered pornography or other not safe for work content is NOT allowed.

4) Submitting false reports or otherwise abusing the report system will result in a ban of indeterminate length. Replying to a thread stating that you've reported it or another post is also disallowed—please do not announce your reports.

5) Ban evasion will result in permanent bans—no exceptions. Instead, wait and appeal it!

6) No spamming or flooding of any kind. No intentionally evading spam/post filters.

7) Advertising (all forms) is also not welcome—this includes any type of referral linking, "offers", soliciting, begging, stream threads, etc.

8) Impersonating the administrator, moderators, or janitors is strictly forbidden.

9) Remember: The use of TFF is a privilege, not a right. The staff reserves the right to revoke access and remove content for any reason without notice.

Apart from that, only two rules are important:

1. BE EXCELLENT TO EACH OTHER.

2. PARTY ON, DUDES. (AND DUDETTES)

 

[Shirotsume]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

Stop voting here, the official voting area is up.

 

[Avider]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

Dislike the way the rules are set up. No options to simply have no rules on a specific category. Too many categories. Complicated.

Wording is both specific and vague, e.g. on cursing, Alternative 3 specifically notes that cursing is allowed if non-curse words outnumber curse words, then what about cases of posts where the only word is, say, fuck, would that be an infraction? More to the point, For Category 3 and 4, cursing and slurs, there's no Option for essentially no limit (to the extent of law), all alternatives have restrictions on them. In particular, Category 3 Alternative 1 is byway the most liberal of the Alternatives, but it still suggest (another vagueness, what is 'may'? Will it be taken down, or won't it be? What decides which?) that 'personal attacks' be taken down when requested, which I dislike on principle and in practice.

On other categories, such as punishment level, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are essentially the same, excepting nuances of the words used that I have no idea what they are, because I didn't write those Alternatives.

Punishment is normally warning vs punishment for small infractions is warning, what's the difference?
Repeated violations leads to temporary bans vs continued violations leads to temporary bans, what's the difference?
Then finally, what constitute irredeemable vs endangering the safety of the board? Which one covers which?

I don't even really have time to go over all that I don't like about the current scheme. Since it's so convoluted, I'd probably not pay attention to any rules coming from this, come what may.

Oh, and of course the whole alternative account category. Calling it a sockpuppet inherently bias the poll against. There's some legitimate uses of alternative accounts that may be separated from unwanted uses (such as sockpuppeting). Rather than a straight yes/no on alternative accounts themselves, it should be or at least include options that specifies yes alts, no alts, yes alts except for these uses, etc...

Full disclosure, I do have another account that I use raringly to post stories, it's essentially a pseudonym. The purpose is to separate any prejudices developed and associated with the active name in order to get more unbiased feedback and criticism. I suspect under the new proposed rule, that won't be happening.

 

[Shirotsume]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

Dislike the way the rules are set up. No options to simply have no rules on a specific category. Too many categories. Complicated.

Every single category has an option that allows no rule for that category, except the ones that legally cannot.

Wording is both specific and vague, e.g. on cursing, Alternative 3 specifically notes that cursing is allowed if non-curse words outnumber curse words, then what about cases of posts where the only word is, say, fuck, would that be an infraction?

Clarified. And yes, posting only "Fuck" would be an infraction, because you don't post one word posts.

More to the point, For Category 3 and 4, cursing and slurs, there's no Option for essentially no limit (to the extent of law), all alternatives have restrictions on them.

Uh... Take a look at Alternative 3. Both of them are "No restrictions, just keep it in the restricted section and you're not spamming curses."

In particular, Category 3 Alternative 1 is byway the most liberal of the Alternatives, but it still suggest (another vagueness, what is 'may'? Will it be taken down, or won't it be? What decides which?) that 'personal attacks' be taken down when requested, which I dislike on principle and in practice.

The moderator does not have to take down an attack. Their refusal to do so may be subject to review, but we're not going to require a user censored because they called someone a "Fucking idiot" and the person got butthurt. As for you disliking it in principle and in practice... then don't vote for it.

On other categories, such as punishment level, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are essentially the same, excepting nuances of the words used that I have no idea what they are, because I didn't write those Alternatives.

Clarified.

Punishment is normally warning vs punishment for small infractions is warning, what's the difference?
Repeated violations leads to temporary bans vs continued violations leads to temporary bans, what's the difference?
Then finally, what constitute irredeemable vs endangering the safety of the board? Which one covers which?

Irredeemable/endangerment clause removed, we already have a clause for things that would kill the board.

The difference is in how often the warning is used as opposed to the temp ban. It was clarified.

I don't even really have time to go over all that I don't like about the current scheme. Since it's so convoluted, I'd probably not pay attention to any rules coming from this, come what may.

You do realize that most of these categories aren't going to end up rules, right? We're going to have like 8 rules I bet.

Oh, and of course the whole alternative account category. Calling it a sockpuppet inherently bias the poll against. There's some legitimate uses of alternative accounts that may be separated from unwanted uses (such as sockpuppeting). Rather than a straight yes/no on alternative accounts themselves, it should be or at least include options that specifies yes alts, no alts, yes alts except for these uses, etc...

Sockpuppets are sockpuppets. It can be called an alt all you want, but the fact remains that there should or shouldn't be multiple "you" on the board.

Full disclosure, I do have another account that I use raringly to post stories, it's essentially a pseudonym. The purpose is to separate any prejudices developed and associated with the active name in order to get more unbiased feedback and criticism. I suspect under the new proposed rule, that won't be happening.

Full disclosure, I have one as well and I voted against it.



Finally... after the poll starts is really not the time to complain about how it was planned. You should probably do that while it's being planned.

 

[Avider]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

Every single category has an option that allows no rule for that category, except the ones that legally cannot.

No, they don't.

Category 1: All options define the limit of necros, including length.
Category 4: Alternative 3 originally have that convoluted definition of more non-curse than curse words, and even now it still states/restricts it to not only curse words.
Category 5: Again with the may. May is useless. There's no criteria for what constitutes actual removal vs. not.

For Category 3, I had thought that all options had some limit written in them, but I see now that Alternative 3 states no restrictions. I'm unsure if that has been changed from when I read it, but I freely admit that I may have read it wrong.

Clarified. And yes, posting only "Fuck" would be an infraction, because you don't post one word posts.

Well then, I guess that's how the new TFF rolls. I see nothing wrong with one word posts, mind not spam, but apparently you do. I don't recall a discussion on the legitimacy of one word posts, or even say, two or three words posts, but it must have taken place at some point and we must have come to a conclusion on the subject.

Or it's evidently obvious in a way that's not evidently obvious. That can happen.

Sockpuppets are sockpuppets. It can be called an alt all you want, but the fact remains that there should or shouldn't be multiple "you" on the board.

And that's a bias. How is an account a sock-puppet if it's not used as a sock-puppet? Perhaps you think that a sock-puppet is just another way to call an alternative account, but it's not simply. There's a history behind the word, a history that's not exactly positive.

In any case, regardless of whether or not you think it's just another way to call an alternative account, the fact remains that by calling it a sock-puppet, this negatively influence the direction of votes, and moreover obsfucate a relevant distinction between a sock-puppet and another account that's legitimately used. I've already detailed one legitimate use of it.

Finally... after the poll starts is really not the time to complain about how it was planned. You should probably do that while it's being planned.

You mean the creation of this topic...yesterday, with one full day of discussion, whereupon it is then put up for vote?
Perhaps you're including the other threads, from which this one was synthesized? In which case, I don't recall a lot of the detail of this particular thread in that one.

Full disclosure, I have one as well and I voted against it.

It's not a contest. I'm just declaring a potential conflict of interest. I'm aware that I am very much bias with regards to that question.

And anyways, you think I'm complaining about how it's planned. Not really. I'm complaining about it specifically, not the process of how it came to be. I'm criticizing the proposed rule set, with what I think are some of the short-comings, and I don't believe that's wrong.

 

[Shirotsume]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

Category 1: When combined with addendum, you can have all necros outside of ideas/previews, where it becomes author's choice.
Category 4: There legally cannot be a "no rules" option for this.
Category 5: It helps if you read what I said- may means that the moderator may NOT act on something when it is brought to their attention. This is DELIBERATELY VAGUE, and allows the rule to not be enforced in cases where it shouldn't be, since users would be able to abuse it to censor people otherwise.

myBB doesn't allow posts that short. So one-worders are straight out. TFF had this too.

A sockpuppet is a sockpuppet regardless of what you want to call it. It's being used as one. Just because you don't like the term doens't mean it isn't a sockpuppet. You're attempting to hide who you are and make a mouthpiece deliver your words.

I never said it was a contest.

I don't think you're complaining about how it was planned.
I think you're complaining about rules that you have an opportunity to criticize on during the proper time, but you did not. I'm not sure what you're expecting me to do here- revoke the entire poll because you personally dislike it?



As a side note: this may be coming off distinctly harsher than it should be, but I'm too tired to be able to adequately fix it at the moment. Bear with me?

 

[Vexarian]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

Sockpuppet (noun):
A false identity adopted by trolls and other malcontents to support their own postings.

The word "support" is crucial here. By Avider's example, he doesn't fit the criteria. Because his alternative account is not being used to support his primary account, or for any other form of subversive activity.

Full Disclosure: I don't particularly care on this issue, I'm just playing the devil's advocate role for kicks.

Also: Shirotsume, this topic has only existed for about thirty hours now. This forum as a whole hasn't even existed for a week. I'm reasonably certain that Avider had only just arrived last night.

 

[Knyght]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

No, he's been here since the 25th. Unless he hadn't been on since then which is entirely possible.

 

[Avider]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

No, he's been here since the 25th. Unless he hadn't been on since then which is entirely possible.

I've been on since it opened I think, but for brief periods of time. It's been a busy week.

Category 4: There legally cannot be a "no rules" option for this.

Another host quirk? If the host requires it, then ok.

Or perhaps I'm not making myself clear.

Having no rules is not the same as saying there is no rules, i.e. everything's fair game. That is to say, anything that's already illegal because of rules XYZ from places KDT, is already illegal, and the forum needs no explicit rules against them. Everything is basically allowed except for what's already prohibited by the relevant jurisdiction.

In this specific case though, there's still no option for, "Use as many curse words as you feel is necessary, or not. Anything that's illegal, of course, is still illegal." This is what I mean by no restrictions (to the extent of the law).

If the host itself requires that curse words be limited, and specifically limited in that specific way (not be the only content of the post), then ok.

A sockpuppet is a sockpuppet regardless of what you want to call it. It's being used as one. Just because you don't like the term doens't mean it isn't a sockpuppet. You're attempting to hide who you are and make a mouthpiece deliver your words.

In essence, you repeat that you define sockpuppet to be alternative accounts, and only that, and I will repeat that sockpuppet has a negative connotation that blurs the line between legitimate use of an alt account vs. non-legitimate use.

And I again repeat that regardless of whatever definition you use, using the term sockpuppet in the poll itself is certainly not impartial. If you think that it is, that sockpuppet is a totally unbias and it just means alternative accounts, well not everybody is you. Perhaps I'm overstating this. Perhaps everybody else (or a significant portion) uses the same definition as you do. If that's the case, then ok.

But I don't believe that to be the case. However, I'm known to be wrong.

Actually, your definition just opened up an interesting loop-hole, and I do mean your definition, because I believe the actual proposed rule covers this. And that is, if you think that sockpuppet = attempting to hide who you are and make a mouthpiece deliver your words, then everything's fine if you just...declare who you are, right? So alternative accounts themselves, according to this definition at least, are not sockpuppets, but alternative accounts that hide who they are, well are.

In which case, you've just essentially defeated yourself. Now, I'm not actually serious about using the above, just proving a point that not every alt accounts are sockpuppets using a particular view of what you specifically think is a sockpuppet. That also demonstrates the negative connotation associated with sockpuppet, in your use of the word hide and mouthpiece and (actually, here I'm just being English nitpicky, it's a habit).

Lastly, I'll just respond to this, because I thought it funny.

I don't think you're complaining about how it was planned.

Forgive me. It's just that, when I read:

Finally... after the poll starts is really not the time to complain about how it was planned.

I weirdly read that as:

complain about how it was planned.

 

[Christopher Robin]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

Why do I have to vote for necros and off-topic posts together? On my vote on them wouldn't be the same, so that's really annoying. In fact, i see several sections where there's more than one Alternative with parts I'd want to vote on separately.

 

[Altered Nova]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

On the topic of sock puppets, perhaps we could put a limit on how many of them a user can have? If every person can only have only two accounts then it would be fairly hard to cause that much grief. It's the guys with dozens of accounts that go around causing trouble. If someone does start using their second account to harass other people or support their own arguments then the mods can ban their second account and forbid them from making another on pain of permaban.

 

[Ninsaneja]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

The reason it's like that is because it mostly doesn't make sense to split them, even if you want to.
And I was here for a whole day (a whole day man) where I took every suggestion and split a lot of things that actually didn't make sense.

 

[Christopher Robin]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

And who the fuck are you that you're doing anything? Doesn't make sense to split them? That's such a bullshit non-reply. Just using the first example, what exactly is it that ties necros and threadjacks together so much that the two separate rules have to be connected? Besides the fact that you said so, that is.

Oh a whole day, was it? Ain't it nice that some of us have nothing better do than be here for an whole entire day.

 

[Ninsaneja]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

I'm sorry that we didn't get to your input. You unfortunately didn't contribute until it was too late in the process (IE actually formalized and vote begun.)

No one else had a problem with linking those two subjects and so we didn't unlink them. In my mind they are very related.

I'm going to ignore your level of sheer rudeness. For now.

 

[foreverzero]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

<.<"

While I don't think it was right of Chris to jump on you like that, making not so veiled threats is incredibly inappropriate. Especially from someone so involved with organizing the infrastructure of the new site. And if things like this continue, this site is simply going to implode with everyone jumping back to oTFF.

Honestly, we've waited a long time for something to be done about the old site, and while I understand wanting everything to immediately be okay, we don't have to rush things. Some people are still trickling in from the old site, and others who have made the jump have lives outside of TFF and may not be able to get on when people are talking about the issues that matter. If we actually desire to get everyone's input about how we plan on running things, we shouldn't be jumping the gun and setting three day time limits on polls or setting everything up without giving people the time to say their piece on the matter.

 

[Shirotsume]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

OK, so... I just woke up. And wow am I fucking grouchy in certain cases. Let's just say I had my reasons, because reasons still dont' excuse it.

Moving on! First, Avider, I apologize- I was being a massive dick.

Now, on to responding:

That is to say, anything that's already illegal because of rules XYZ from places KDT, is already illegal, and the forum needs no explicit rules against them.

If we didn't spell the rules out on what is explicitly illegal, someone will break it. Maybe I'm just being overly cynical- and that's a possibility. But I feel like it would be wrong to just be like "Oh, well that's illegal, so we don't need to bring it up."

As for the host requirement, yes, we need to keep all NSFW in the NSFW forum. For cursing, saying "Yeah, you can just curse as much as you want!" seems less than ideal, because then we'll end up with posts that are nothing but a string of profanity. I can edit it if that's a consensus that we want to allow it, but... Really it's just to ensure that moderators ave the explicit ability to deal with trolls spamming curses.

Actually, your definition just opened up an interesting loop-hole, and I do mean your definition, because I believe the actual proposed rule covers this. And that is, if you think that sockpuppet = attempting to hide who you are and make a mouthpiece deliver your words, then everything's fine if you just...declare who you are, right? So alternative accounts themselves, according to this definition at least, are not sockpuppets, but alternative accounts that hide who they are, well are.

Actually... I find myself agreeing. We would definitely want rules on it, because one person doesn't need six accounts, but I personally have no problem with an announced sockpuppet- because it's no longer a puppet, but a known representation of you. You would probably need a very good reason to have one, however, because that's a lot of hassle for forumers, and I can't think of a single legit reason for having an announced alt.


Re: funnyness
Whargbl. This is why I should't type when I haven't slept.

[hr]

As for the displeasure about it only being up for 24 hours, stop jumping down ninsaneja's throat. That was my fault, I thought it had been up for significantly longer than that.
The whole reason they were together was because that was a category about Unwanted Posts. We already had complaints that there were too many categories, so we were consolidating what we could, and splitting what people disliked.

[hr]

The reason for the three day poll is so we're not wasting time. What's the difference between, say, a three day vote and a week long vote, aside from the increased numbers of new people being able to vote on it? Not much. Probably 10 votes or so, out of 130ish. I have the analytic numbers of the website- we currently have 600 people who have joined new TFF, and about 200 of those people are active a day.

The point here isn't that we need every last person's input on running things- we just need a representative of TFF's input, in as good of time as we can get it. Extending the polls has significantly diminishing returns.

That said... yes, I should have waited longer before putting up the rules poll. I had thought it had been up longer than the day it had been up- I agree that is too short of time.

 

[Garahs]

RE: Tentative Rules Thread

It looks like people are voting towards Hawk's rules anyways. I'd appreciate it if someone could explain why Hawk's rules are outdated though. I'm not seeing how the forum has changed outside of Hawk not actually being the go to person anymore.