The Rules

foesjoe · May 3, 2013

I'm not okay with your Category Three rule and think it should be changed.

In my opinion, this "rule" defeats the purpose of what TFF should stand for.

This place should be about helping authors write interesting stories and providing constructive criticism. You do not go about doing that by throwing insults and slurs around.

Also, I don't know from what shit-hole the author of that rule comes, but insults are certainly not a way of saying "hello" anywhere I've been.

My suggestion for Category Three:

Iddy · May 3, 2013

I sorta agree with foesjoe, but he's not exactly right, either.

Parts 1 and 4 of the rule are really, really case-by-case. As an example, Zeph and I have known each other for a while, and for us going back and forth with insults is kind of a "I'm bored, let's fill some time" sort of deal.

But that's by *mutual agreement.* On the same vein, I've known Ataru, Fallacy, Olorin (though we don't talk much), Onigiri, and Sunhawk for a while; and while Ataru, Onigiri, and Sunhawk are okay with some occasional back and forth like that, it's not our normal way of interacting with each other.

Some people don't mind that type back and forth, but typically, foesjoe's right. In normal life, you don't start conversations with, "Hey fuck-face" unless the person you're talking to is one of your really, really good friends. However, internet thick skin rules do sort of apply; anonymity lends 'courage' and also encourages bad behavior, so to a degree, the target needs to be able to just brush it off. After all, it's just some words someone is spouting at you on a forum. In the end, it doesn't *really* impact your life or matter.

The rule as it stands isn't exactly *wrong,* per-se, but I think it needs an amendment at the least.

Something like: 5. The above are true until the target requests the behavior stop. Once the request has been publicly posted multiple times, and continues, the target may escalate it to the mods/admin for enforcement.

I've never been a forum mod, so I'm not sure what tools are available to use for enforcement, but I think if you restrict yourselves to removing the post and discouraging re-posting, you'll wind up having a lot of work if the instigator decides to be determined.

Granted, I think you meant that to be implied, as I've never met any mod or admin who's allowed an issue to constantly repeat, but hey. Rules are supposed to blatantly obvious.

chronodekar · May 3, 2013

foesjoe said:

I agree that the rules can be confusing, but whether you like them or not, they WERE the ones voted for by the community. I wasn't there when the vote took place, but for the most part, they seem alright enough to me.

Regardless, its too early to change these. We just had the vote barely a month ago. Its better to just let the current wording of the rules stand as they are and re-evaluate them after a few months have passed by; preferably a year.

I fully agree with this. I want TFF to become a place where members can grow as authors, critics & readers of English fanfiction.

I also agree with this. Its simply rude to throw insults at a total stranger. But the matter is different when we're talking about friends/people we've come to know. The idea (as I see it) behind the 'slurs are allowed' rule is to protect the regular posters from high-handed admin/moderator censorship. The last thing this forum needs for creativity is a rogue administrator (or moderator) who goes around banning people for foul language. Which brings us to your own post,

According to you, then I should take some kind of action for the indicated slur. But I'm not going to. Why? Because I know that you are only trying to make a point. The only time when action NEEDS to be taken is if the 'victim' or 'recipient' feels offended. It would be silly otherwise.

Now, if you have personally had someone say something to you publicly that was in bad taste, please press the 'report' button on the post and make an issue of it - we can take action then. Otherwise, unless its against icyboard's (our host) rules, we usually have a hands-off approach.

I like this, but again, lets wait a few months to see if its needed first?

-chronodekar

onigiri · May 3, 2013

I agree, you come-guzzling-queens.

Knyght · May 3, 2013

To be honest, I doubt the general laxity of the rules in that category applies to the Previews section. Insults, condescending comments and personal attacks aren't things that are seen there, as far as I'm aware. This is more towards all the general discussion in the talk sections or non-fanfiction categories.

Shirotsume · May 3, 2013

Previews does, in fact, have it's own set of rules, which allow the author to set many of their own rules within their story threads.

As for the rules... we've already had several people complain of nTFF being a 'hugbox' and 'not in the same spirit.'
While I would disagree with it being a hugbox, keeping the spirit of TFF alive is fairly important, and changing this rule would basically no longer make this place TFF.

foesjoe · May 3, 2013

Shirotsume said:

What? Did you ever have a look at the rules of TFF? It has never been okay to throw around insults on TFF.

TFF has never been - or, as I should rather say, should never have turned into anything resembling 4chan. You were always supposed to act in a civil manner.

Also, there's a huge ocean of nuance between a forum being a "hugbox" and using insults to say "hello".

In a forum that is about discussing opinions and providing constructive criticism, insults should in no way be permitted or encouraged. The point where insults start getting thrown around is usually the point where rational discussion stops.

Also, the whole "insults are okay as long as people are only joking" things is stupid, in my opinion. This is an internet forum, where you can't convey tone of voice or body language. Even if your insult is meant in a joking manner, people are bound to take it the wrong way.
Due to the medium, this just doesn't work.

pidl · May 3, 2013

And then the one insulted reports it and the mods take action, so I don't see the problem. Also, your sig is huge, can't you take a smaller one?

chronodekar · May 3, 2013

foesjoe said:

If this were my ideal forum, I would whole-heartedly agree with you. But it isn't. This is TFF. We are who we are. The community voted in the current rule-set and if you want to change any of the rules, you'll need to somehow gain a LOT of support from the others on the forum.

With the rules barely a month old, we (admins & mods) are in no moral position to even consider changing them.

And that is my official stance on the matter. I'm keeping the topic open if any of the other admins/mods have something to add. Otherwise, I'm locking this after a night's sleep.

@foesjoe,

More importantly, is this really something that needs to be complained about? If someone actually offended you or hurt you, I can understand the need for justice. But this is more of a theoretical question than anything else.

EDIT:

@pidl,
As ... unique as his signature is, lets not risk side-tracking something in the appeal section? Please?

-chronodekar

foesjoe · May 3, 2013

chronodekar said:

This makes absolutely no sense.

Have you ever taken a look at the rules of Hawk's TFF? Did you read the very first rule, which very explicitly states not to insult people, to act in a civil manner towards each other and to post constructive criticism?

It only devolved into this place where you could throw around insults without repercussions and generally act like an all around asshole because moderation was nonexistent.

Now you tell me most of the users want to allow this behaviour to continue?

What was the point in moving to a new forum then?

fallacies · May 3, 2013

chronodekar said:

His point is mostly that "this is TFF" doesn't really constitute as an argument against, since oTFF theoretically had rules in place (unenforced) precisely to prevent the sort of behavior being described.
And, well, locking the thread just because seems like a really preemptive action.

pidl · May 3, 2013

The current rules were approved by the majority who voted. I don't even want to imagine the shitstorm that would ensue if admins/mods changed these rules unilateral. Trust in them is already shaky enough.

fallacies · May 3, 2013

I kind of wonder how many votes actually went into the 'majority' in total.
But that's neither here or there, I guess.
It's still a silly rule.

The burden of proof falls to the victim in a lawyerism that essentially prevents administrative action at all. Why? Because the attacker can just always just say it's just a joke, and that it was only read by the victim subjectively as an attack.
How can it be proven at all? There can never be clarity there, due to intentional obfuscation within the text of the rules -- put there for the explicit purpose of making life difficult for a prospective victim.
Ergo, the act of moderation can basically be nullified in every case, except in the previews forum. It becomes very difficult to justify any actions whatsoever in response to trolling beyond, even if the need actually arises.

Additionally, the specific wording makes it sound like "no action will be taken at all in any case unless the target can prove that a given post constitutes as a personal attack" -- regardless of how it's intended (that action will be taken on behalf of a target if requested). And, well, even if current admins and mods understand the intent, there's no guarantee that it won't be abused by a future moderator.

The lack of clarity in the wording, by the way, was mentioned to Shirotsume and the author of the rules -- but by the point it was discussed, they had absolved themselves of any involvement in the official capacity.
It remains a problem to be addressed.

pidl · May 3, 2013

I figured that if someone insulted you, you'd report it and then the mods take it down according to rule 3. If someone keeps doing it, they get 'discouraged' in the form of a ban.

I thought rule 1 was more about offensive words that aren't actually adressed at someone personally, like a horrible racist joke using terms not really fit for polite conversation.

Shirotsume · May 3, 2013

Actually, it had been discussed, reasoning given, and the vagueness intentional. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it 'unadressed'- it just means you disagree with it.

Before you attempt to rules lawyer, you should actually understand what the rules say. Your post has several issue with it, not in the least of which being that moderators can't act unless the person is reported.

Beyond that, while there were 'technically' rules on oTFF, to say that we should enforce the rules exactly as the old rules were written on oldTFF is pointless. For one thing, oldTFF's rules ARE NOT nTFF's.

Attempting to argue that we should apply oTFF's rules to nTFF is just as pointless as trying to argue that we should implement SB's rules.

And finally, there were technically rules in place, but none were ever enforced. There were, realistically, no rules.

EDIT: pidl has the general idea.

fallacies · May 3, 2013

Shirotsume said:

It was, in fact, "unaddressed." You said to me that if the wording clarity was an issue, it would be addressed by the eventual moderators.
The eventual moderators are now here and active, and I'm taking issue with it.

Before you say that there are "several issues with" the rule interpretation in the previous post, you should recall from discussion that this was an intentionally extremist interpretation given to highlight the problems with the rule.

If you want the rule to say, "we allow insults, and protect trolls that just laugh everything off as a joke," then it should just say that. Hiding it behind "we assign to the victim the burden of proof that it really isn't just subjective perception of an attack" makes it so that a prospective victim actually hurt by trolling just has to "live with" a particular interpretation of what standard behavior on the web should be like -- particularly if they don't comprehend that requesting admin intervention doesn't actually require proof. And no, the fact that we're supposed to take all three of the lines there as a single unit doesn't particularly make it clear that the interpretation I previously gave ("no action will be taken at all in any case unless the target can prove that a given post constitutes as a personal attack") was wrong.

The rule expresses a very "if you can't stand the heat, get off the internet" stance, and that shouldn't be the overall position of a forum theoretically dedicated for constructive purposes -- the loathsomeness of hugboxing notwithstanding.

Shirotsume · May 3, 2013

A link to where I told you this, please, because I don't recall ever saying that.

fallacies · May 3, 2013

Ergo, you and Ninsaneja both suggested that the version of Category Three that existed a month ago wasn't "complete" or "final," but it ended up figuring into the final document without significant modifications anyways, even though a complaint was raised.

There was another discussion where you indicated more explicitly that if it was really an issue with it, hopefully it would be dealt with by an active moderator following votes. I can't be bothered to find it -- because it frankly doesn't matter. What would it prove, on my side? That you and Ninsaneja really had no intention to carry out any major changes to Category Three then and there, and that you'd be leaving work for the current moderators in case an issue actually existed? This ended up being true anyways, and isn't a particularly offensive accusation that I'm making against you. I presume that on your side, my not finding it would somehow permit you to go, "Aha! I caught you out on your lie! Therefore you can't claim that this issue was 'unaddressed!'" -- except not really.

The point is that this is something that I took issue with, and was never actually addressed. If you're poking at the semantics or history of my indicating your involvement to catch me out on directing some obscure ad hominem or defamation/misrepresentation against you, you're missing a few things.

Whether or not something is "addressed," by the way, is a very subjective thing. If we take it merely to mean "handling" something, then no, it wasn't handled. It wasn't taken as issue to be dealt with; and was thus left unaddressed. If, on the other hand, we take it to mean "(an actor) recognizing and processing an item of interest," then I concede that this issue was indeed not subject to recognition on your part as an item of interest, and thus that you're correct in suggesting that it had no grounds to be "addressed" in the first place. I ask that you please accept this concession.

Ina_meishou · May 3, 2013

Look, someone has brought up an issue with the rules as written. It's a pretty valid issue, the rules are worded somewhat poorly and could use some clarification at the least.

For example, those clarifications that several people have put up in the thread about what the rules 'really mean'? One could try making them the actual rules and integrating the clarification into the rule text.

Or the admin/mods could open up discussion and encourage input to see if the majority of the board is really alright with the rules as written. You got elected to be leaders here, that wasn't a gift of status, it was a burden of work.

pidl · May 3, 2013

So basically:

1) Foul language is allowed, don't come crying because someone used an expletive or slur.
3) Personal attacks are kinda allowed, no action will be taken if there is no report, but if you have an issue with how someone adressed you, report it and the mods will remove it and warn the perpetrator.
4) Not every insulting word is meant as an insult.

Ina_meishou · May 3, 2013

pidl said:

So basically:

1) Foul language is allowed, don't come crying because someone used an expletive or slur.
3) Personal attacks are kinda allowed, no action will be taken if there is no report, but if you have an issue with how someone adressed you, report it and the mods will remove it and warn the perpetrator.
4) Not every insulting word is meant as an insult.

Yeah basically. Clear, concise, easy to understand.

The Ero-Sennin · May 3, 2013

A clearer interpretation of the rules would leave less room for abuse, I really don't see why we shouldn't make them clearer without becoming nannies over every little insult. If that makes sense.

foesjoe · May 3, 2013

pidl said:

I still think this is too vague. Personal attacks are 'kinda allowed' - what the hell does that mean?

I'd suggest something more along these lines:

1) Foul language is allowed, don't come crying because someone used an expletive or slur.
2) Do not insult other members of this board. Insults and personal attacks are counter productive to constructive criticism and civilised discussion and will be dealt with by the admins.

Shirotsume · May 3, 2013

Foesjoe, we're clarifying the current rules, not tacking on more. You don't get to decide to add rules.
Now, maybe you weren't intending to try and restrict speech more- but that's what your suggestions amount to, and that is not allowed unless you can get a significantly higher amount of support.

As for clarifying the rules, fallacies, you'll notice I did clarify them from what they were. That's apparently pointless though, given they're still causing confusion.

fallacies · May 3, 2013

Clearly, the clarified rules aren't clear enough.

The Rules

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Obsessively signs his posts

Member

The Collector

Not The Goddamn @dmin

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Obsessively signs his posts

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Not The Goddamn @dmin

Well-Known Member

Not The Goddamn @dmin

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Eyes of Heaven

Well-Known Member

Not The Goddamn @dmin

Well-Known Member