TFF Rules

[TFF_Admin]

EDIT: Poll is closed, pending a better way of finding the rules.

 

[Ninsaneja]

What does "No 'You Fail!'" mean?
What does "Be Cool." actually entail?
Why isn't there a between case for author control over story threads? Or rather, I think authors should have more control than just threadjacking but less than total control (IE including useless posts but not including constructive posts).

 

[TFF_Admin]

The no You Fail thing is because TFF has had a problem in the past with people only posting non-constructive idiocy in response to story posts.

I haven't the foggiest goddamn clue what "Be cool." is supposed to entail moderator-wise. I suppose it covers general unrepentant idiocy.

I much prefer the DBAD rule. It's much like porn- you can't necessarily define douchebaggery, but you damn well know it when you see it.

 

[Ninsaneja]

Non-constructive idiocy should fall under author control of threadjacking. It's not technically off-topic, but it's close enough. I refuse to ban non-constructive idiocy outright.

 

[rukia8492]

one problemi have is the no profanity thing, honestly do yall expect the person with the foulest mouth on here(me) to be able to change our damn habits. seriously man think for a bit it's completely acceptable in the community im in to use fou language.

 

[Ninsaneja]

Special Vote. coz I'm special.

+No necroing without content.*

+If the author asks, stop threadjacking.* Assuming this also applies to useless posts. There's no in-between option. I don't want to allow an author to stifle even constructive posts.

+Signature limitations put into effect.* <- Shiro, judgement call here. Don't count this if it means my sig won't fit

No slurs, unless you're trying to be funny about it.*

No fanfiction posted without attribution to author, and removable at author's request.*

Nothing illegal. * < I don't care unless it could harm the board's existence.

No Sockpuppets except TFF_Admin *

 

[Vexarian]

I think this poll is a bad-bad idea.

Edit: To elaborate, I do not believe that rules should be put to a vote and particularly not put to a vote as clumsy as this one. There are over twenty options in that poll, many of which could be folded together into more simplistic principles, and all together simply blend together into a mess.

We would be much better off with a few proposals presented similarly to the previous topic. "Minimal Rules", "Moderate Rules", "SOVIET RUSSIA", etc.

 

[Shirotsume]

Well, I didn't want to just arbitrarily make up 'Packages' of rules. I can if that's what people would prefer.

 

[Ninsaneja]

Shiro: We should settle on a rules level first, so that we dont end up with schizo rules. And better definitions for rules at the very least. Unless anyone actually wants the mods to have total interpretive power.

 

[Vexarian]

Well, I didn't want to just arbitrarily make up 'Packages' of rules. I can if that's what people would prefer.

We pretty much already had that going on in the rules thread.

Minimal Rules would be the three I suggested.

SOVIET RUSSIA would be the crap that PCHeintz suggested.

And there's probably some sort of middle ground there.

 

[rdde]

Can we start off with the minimal rules first, and then modify it as needed? It is not like the rules are going to be frozen for eternity.

 

[TFF_Admin]

Everyone's definition of minimal is different.

Regardless, at the very least we have-
NSFW goes in the NSFW forum.
Nothing illegal.
No spamming.

 

[Glimmervoid]

Honestly, I'd rather just stick with the rules Hawk set up long ago, the ones in this thread. They seem to be working. If a problem arises in the future, we can add a rule to address it but all the stuff like 'author control over story threads' makes me feel more than a little worried.

 

[Vexarian]

Can we start off with the minimal rules first, and then modify it as needed? It is not like the rules are going to be frozen for eternity.

I was just thinking that before I logged on, and suggested it in another thread.

It seems by far like the best solution to me.

 

[foreverzero]

Honestly, Vex's three rules amount to pretty much the original rules Hawk set out, outside of the addendum that author's have a slight say in how their threads are run (whether off topicness should be kept to a minimum, or free reign to speak about anything and everything even slightly related to the story). However, from my view point, not only do we have three levels of how expansive the rules should be (minimal-something along the lines of Vex's three rules, with a slight addendum giving some examples, moderate-the above mentioned "something in between", and extreme-highly detailed list of what is and isn't acceptable on the board that PCHeintz desired), but also whether we wish to be lax or strict with rule enforcement. Essentially, not only should we be voting on the number of rules, but how active we want mods enforcing those rules.

The rules Hawk set out were there, but with how little Hawk was around, they generally weren't really enforced, and even then, only in the most severe of cases, or when a trend began forming among the forum members like the string of "You fail!" posts that got on Hawk's nerves. If we wished the board to remain the same, we'd likely want minimal-lax, but there isn't anything stopping us from going with a more detailed set of rules and simply not enforcing them as strictly.

As for my own personal opinion, I'd prefer something around minimal/moderate-lax. I'd prefer if mods didn't hop into topics giving warnings at every opportunity, but simply popped in and mentioned to a poster that they were kind of being a dick and shouldn't be.

Edit: And in line with Vex and rdde's comments about starting off with minimal rules, and my own desire for the rules to be not as strictly enforced, I'd prefer if we started off with only a few mods and added more if we really needed them. You can always add more mods down the line, but kicking mods out because we chose too many seems like a dick move.

 

[Ninsaneja]

http://thefanfictionforum.net/showthread.php?tid=19448
Where we are sort of discussing the whole thing.
I think if we have a lot of moderators we need a more formal, total code.
That's not to say it will be more strict - it just has to be more solid.

 

[Vexarian]

Honestly, Vex's three rules amount to pretty much the original rules Hawk set out, outside of the addendum that author's have a slight say in how their threads are run (whether off topicness should be kept to a minimum, or free reign to speak about anything and everything even slightly related to the story). However, from my view point, not only do we have three levels of how expansive the rules should be (minimal-something along the lines of Vex's three rules, with a slight addendum giving some examples, moderate-the above mentioned "something in between", and extreme-highly detailed list of what is and isn't acceptable on the board that PCHeintz desired), but also whether we wish to be lax or strict with rule enforcement. Essentially, not only should we be voting on the number of rules, but how active we want mods enforcing those rules.

The rules Hawk set out were there, but with how little Hawk was around, they generally weren't really enforced, and even then, only in the most severe of cases, or when a trend began forming among the forum members like the string of "You fail!" posts that got on Hawk's nerves. If we wished the board to remain the same, we'd likely want minimal-lax, but there isn't anything stopping us from going with a more detailed set of rules and simply not enforcing them as strictly.

As for my own personal opinion, I'd prefer something around minimal/moderate-lax. I'd prefer if mods didn't hop into topics giving warnings at every opportunity, but simply popped in and mentioned to a poster that they were kind of being a dick and shouldn't be.

Edit: And in line with Vex and rdde's comments about starting off with minimal rules, and my own desire for the rules to be not as strictly enforced, I'd prefer if we started off with only a few mods and added more if we really needed them. You can always add more mods down the line, but kicking mods out because we chose too many seems like a dick move.

Pretty agreed on these points. But keep in mind that in my ideal fantasy world, the moderators wouldn't spend most, or even much of their time enforcing the rules themselves, but instead be performing janitorial duties like moving or deleting or rearranging things that need to be moved, deleted or rearranged, likely at least part of the time at the request of the forum-goers themselves.

 

[Zephyrus]

Honestly, Vex's three rules amount to pretty much the original rules Hawk set out, outside of the addendum that author's have a slight say in how their threads are run (whether off topicness should be kept to a minimum, or free reign to speak about anything and everything even slightly related to the story). However, from my view point, not only do we have three levels of how expansive the rules should be (minimal-something along the lines of Vex's three rules, with a slight addendum giving some examples, moderate-the above mentioned "something in between", and extreme-highly detailed list of what is and isn't acceptable on the board that PCHeintz desired), but also whether we wish to be lax or strict with rule enforcement. Essentially, not only should we be voting on the number of rules, but how active we want mods enforcing those rules.

The rules Hawk set out were there, but with how little Hawk was around, they generally weren't really enforced, and even then, only in the most severe of cases, or when a trend began forming among the forum members like the string of "You fail!" posts that got on Hawk's nerves. If we wished the board to remain the same, we'd likely want minimal-lax, but there isn't anything stopping us from going with a more detailed set of rules and simply not enforcing them as strictly.

As for my own personal opinion, I'd prefer something around minimal/moderate-lax. I'd prefer if mods didn't hop into topics giving warnings at every opportunity, but simply popped in and mentioned to a poster that they were kind of being a dick and shouldn't be.

Edit: And in line with Vex and rdde's comments about starting off with minimal rules, and my own desire for the rules to be not as strictly enforced, I'd prefer if we started off with only a few mods and added more if we really needed them. You can always add more mods down the line, but kicking mods out because we chose too many seems like a dick move.

Pretty agreed on these points. But keep in mind that in my ideal fantasy world, the moderators wouldn't spend most, or even much of their time enforcing the rules themselves, but instead be performing janitorial duties like moving or deleting or rearranging things that need to be moved, deleted or rearranged, likely at least part of the time at the request of the forum-goers themselves.

There was only a minority of posters on oTFF that made the majority wish that there were mods available to police their actions. I honestly feel that once mod authority has been used several times, this minority will figure out that just because they were the loudest on oTFF, it doesn't mean that their behavior will fly on nTFF. And then there'll be peace. =p

I agree that the bulk of the mod's duties will involve keeping the various forums free from clutter and generally pruning the boards to keep them nice and organized.

 

[zeebee1]

The only issue I have is that I think we need a rule in regards with necros for the sake of trolling.

 

[foreverzero]

We've already gone over that in the thread voting on the rules. You can necro so long as it's on topic, but you get in trouble if it isn't.

 

[Nanya]

Okay, so I was talking to someone who just joined TFF and they were looking at the rules and one of the rules confuses them.

It's about category 2 and the concerns that it could cause future problems.

Category Two: Author Rights
1. The author will have authority on necros, threadjacks, offtopics, and useless posts.
2. The author will be required to accept constructive, on-topic posts.
3. Rules must be declared formally, with notice, with no exceptions.

#1 sounds like every author will get moderator power within their own threads.
#2 is requiring that author to accept something that's on-topic and subjective.
"Will be required to accept"?
How are you supposed to enforce that?
"Rules must be declared formally, with notice, no exceptions"?
When, where, and how?

So, could you guys hopefully clarify these questions for us?

 

[Shirotsume]

1: An author has the right to say that he doesn't want necros, threadjacks, offtopics, or useless posts in his thread, which is normally allowed. Should someone do that, a moderator may be called to enforce that.

2. A moderator will not respond to that call, however, if the author is refusing to accept legitimate criticism and is attempting to use the above rule to silence that criticism, or something of the like.

3. The author has to put his rules in his opening post- that is, s/he must give notice. There is no exceptions to this rule- you must declare your rules before they are put into effect. You can't retroactively apply rules.