The Rules

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
#26
...Are you agreeing with me, or did you not read what I said?
 

pidl

Well-Known Member
#27
foesjoe said:
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.
I still think this is too vague. Personal attacks are 'kinda allowed' - what the hell does that mean?
It means exactly what it says: Unless the victim makes a report about it, the mods will do nothing. So you can insult everyone and their mother and the mods won't do anything about it (allowed), but if someone reports it, you get warned (not allowed).
 

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
#28
I feel like that's a pointless clarification.

It's already a rule that unless you get reported for it, that it's not a problem.
 

foesjoe

Well-Known Member
#29
Shirotsume said:
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.
No. You're clarifying the current rules. I think they're terrible and stupid and need to be changed.

And don't give me that nonsense about restricting speech. We're talking common etiquette here. TFF has always been about constructive criticism and civilised discussion. You can't have that when you give people carte blanche to throw around insults.

Also, as you so aptly put it in your member description, you're not the admin. You don't get to decide what is and isn't allowed.
 

fallacies

Well-Known Member
#30
To clarify: If there still exists an issue of clarity to other people who are not you, Shirotsume, then clearly the clarification has not sufficiently clarified the clear meaning and intent of the rules to others.
In other words, the 'pointlessness' you acknowledge of the clarification that you applied is practically and fundamentally valid.
 

pidl

Well-Known Member
#31
foesjoe said:
Shirotsume said:
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.
No. You're clarifying the current rules. I think they're terrible and stupid and need to be changed.

And don't give me that nonsense about restricting speech. We're talking common etiquette here. TFF has always been about constructive criticism and civilised discussion. You can't have that when you give people carte blanche to throw around insults.

Also, as you so aptly put it in your member description, you're not the admin. You don't get to decide what is and isn't allowed.
And neither do you. Which is why there was a vote, and these rules got the majority vote, so these are the ones TFF chose.

And people don't have carte blanche: if you're insulted and report it to a mod, they will remove the offensive content and warn the poster (as has been said multiple times)
 

Ninsaneja

Well-Known Member
#32
foesjoe said:
Also, why is there no 2) ?
I want to make a joke about me being unable to count and Shiro being bad at proofreading, but really it was to emphasize the absence of a section of that rule that I removed after several requests.

EDIT: And if the admins feel like they need to clarify it, as many have said, the general idea of that section is "We don't care about offensive language (which is also addressed elsewhere) but if you are the subject of a personal attack you may report it which will result in removal of the post and a warning IN THE CASE OF CONTINUED PERSONAL ATTACKS BY THE SAME PERSON AGAINST YOU." That last part cannot be stressed more. If you did not know that person was going to be sensitive, it is up to them to inform you before it's a violation of the rules.
BAM.

Also part 4 of that rule is meant to clarify that in addition to actual slurs, generic non-slur insults are also considered OK unless reported (and we look down on people who report casual insults like "sup assholes" and etc.)
 

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
#33
So in other words fallacy, you're agreeing with me- I clarified it, we have found that there is still confusion about the clarification... so I said we need to clarify more.

As for foesjoe thinking they're stupid and need to be changed, appeals is not where you do that. You need significantly more support to pull that off, so go hit up suggestions, and understand what the rules actually are first.

EDIT: here, I'm going to sum this up. We have two issues at play here.

The first is that the rule on insults is still vague and unclear. This needs to be clarified.

The second is that foesjoe dislikes the current rules. For this, he needs to get support for it.
 

fallacies

Well-Known Member
#34
Category Three: Personal Attacks and Racism
1) Personal attacks are allowed, unless complaint is given.
2) If directed against a given target, the target may request to have them removed.
3) Following removal, re-posting will be discouraged.
 

pidl

Well-Known Member
#35
fallacies said:
Category Three: Personal Attacks and Racism
1) Personal attacks are allowed, unless complaint is given.
2) If directed against a given target, the target may request to have them removed.
3) Following removal, re-posting will be discouraged.
Now your rule 1 and 2 are saying the same thing. I found my version clearer, but meh.
 

GenocideHeart

Well-Known Member
#36
Let's make it easier to understand, shall we?

Simply put, you insult someone at your own peril. If they decide to respond in kind and start a flamewar rather than report, then good for you, you're in the clear. Knock yourself out and tear each other to pieces. If, however, they take offense and report you, then mods will take action and it'll really be no one's fault but yours for being a rude git.

Basically, it's like walking into a dog cage. You may be bitten, you may not, but the choice to enter the damn cage is yours, and if you get hit with consequences, then well, you should've known better.

That is my proposal.

tl; dr: You can be a dick all you want, but if someone decides to be a dick right back by reporting you, then you don't get to complain. Karma is a bitch, and all that.
 

Ninsaneja

Well-Known Member
#37
I would like to add one thing to that GH, which is that the intent of the rule was that you had one free shot where the only punishment is removal of the post. Basically, if someone hasn't discouraged personal attacks in the past or said anything about it, you shouldn't have to know that they're sensitive to it. It's only if you keep posting attacks against that person once you've been somehow notified (by removal of a previous personal attack or any other way) that you receive an official warning % that leads to punishments.

I noticed a problem here in that warning can have two meanings - the official warning %, and a "warning" that further personal attacks can lead to punishment. I really do mean the second option.
 

Watashiwa

Administrator
Staff member
#38
I make a point of sending everyone who gets an official warning from me an explanation of why they're getting warned. I think most of the warnings that have been sent have attached "actual warnings". Getting hit for a first time offense isn't a bad thing if it helps the point stick.

The warning percentage is more of a way to let mods know when someone's really pushing things at high levels, and to show other forum posters that you've been punished for what it was that you did. I don't expect we'll see high numbers at all, and there probably won't ever be many lows either.
 

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
#39
Warning percentages aren't visible to other users.

As for a clarification, here's the abridged version of the rule.
4. Heated discussion, arguments, and name calling are fine. Don't make it personal, though. If you find you absolutely need to make it personal, don't do it in public.

Unabridged:

Category Three: Personal Attacks and Racism
1. Slurs are allowed, as long as they aren't obviously intended to be harmful. That is to say, in the absence of absolute evidence of harmful intent, no action will be taken.
3. Personal attacks may be taken down at the target's request, at which point re-posting will be discouraged.
4. Insults are a way of saying "hello."


So first- is there any confusion for the abridged version of the rules? if so, we can keep that and work on clarifying the unabridged.
 

chronodekar

Obsessively signs his posts
Staff member
#40
Just woke up a few hours ago and skimmed through the discussion.

One point that has been reinforced (implicitly) by other staff is that we're NOT going to change the rules. Or even add to them - at least, not without involving the community at large.

Another perfectly valid point is on the matter of clarity. Heck, I've admitted that I find the some of the rules confusing myself.

@ foesjoe & fallacies,

You two seem to have the biggest concerns with the current rule set. I'm willing to support you, as a staff member, for some kind of addendum to be noted with the rules. Not more rules, but rather, a note to make them more clear. Obviously we'll need to get approval from the rest of the staff to actually include it in the rules thread, but I'm willing to help.

For now, I'm going to take a few hours off, come back and re-read this thread a few more times before proposing my own set of 'official clarifications'. I hope the delay is acceptable? Since this is a matter of legalese I need to be careful with the wording.

@ everyone,

I don't think we need to re-iterate the intent of the rules. But if some folks want an 'official' note of clarification on the rules, I see no reason not to give them that chance, hence, why I've decided to keep this thread open. Please keep the discussion as polite as you can.

-chronodekar
 

fallacies

Well-Known Member
#41
chronodekar said:
You two seem to have the biggest concerns with the current rule set. I'm willing to support you, as a staff member, for some kind of addendum to be noted with the rules. Not more rules, but rather, a note to make them more clear. Obviously we'll need to get approval from the rest of the staff to actually include it in the rules thread, but I'm willing to help.
I'm not actually pushing for a 'change.'
I'm hoping for a rewording, maybe similar to the one I posted earlier.
But yeah, a clarification will do.
 

chronodekar

Obsessively signs his posts
Staff member
#42
What's on my mind is to make a second post to the 'Unabridged Rules' thread titled 'Clarifications'. We won't change/modify any of the rules but we'll have a more 'official' stance on what kind of behavior is permitted on this forum. If this is acceptable to you guys, I'll try selling the idea to the rest of the staff. Alternate ideas which do not involve editing the 'Unabridged Rules' post are welcome.

Here's what I propose to be the content of the post,
The exact wording of the official unabridged rules has caused confusion to some members. The following is the forum staff's stance on how they will be interpreted.

Rule Clarifications

Category Three: Personal Attacks and Racism
The intent of these rules is to protect regular forum posters from flamers and other unwanted troublemakers.

GenocideHeart pid='1164365' dateline='1367625309' said:
Simply put, you insult someone at your own peril. If they decide to respond in kind and start a flamewar rather than report, then good for you, you're in the clear. Knock yourself out and tear each other to pieces. If, however, they take offense and report you, then mods will take action and it'll really be no one's fault but yours for being a rude git.
In general, please try to remember what kind of community TFF strives to become when you make a post.

foesjoe pid='1164144' dateline='1367590811' said:
This place should be about helping authors write interesting stories and providing constructive criticism.
And finally an alternate rewording of Category Three,

fallacies pid='1164359' dateline='1367623946' said:
1) Personal attacks are allowed, unless complaint is given.
2) If directed against a given target, the target may request to have them removed.
3) Following removal, re-posting will be discouraged.
[hr]
This post will be edited to issue further clarifications as needed.
Suggestions/Improvements/Comments ?

-chronodekar
 

Vexarian

Well-Known Member
#43
I wandered in here because I had some PMs to take care of. Figured I'd check out the appeals nonsense and find out what was up with Gaffleguy.

For what it's worth, I think Pidl's revisions are better, and less redundant.
 

fallacies

Well-Known Member
#44
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.
a) "Personal attacks are kinda allowed" introduces "personal attacks" as a semantically separate entity from "foul language," and doesn't define it.
b) We're told that it's "kinda" allowed, which is an unnecessary vagueness.
c) If "personal attacks" and "foul language" are taken as equivalent due to the non-definition, "if you have an issue with how someone adressed you, report it and the mods will remove it and warn the perpetrator" becomes equivalent to "come crying whenever someone uses an expletive or slur," which contradicts the first rule.
d) "Foul language is allowed" might be taken as equivalent to "Not every insulting word is meant as an insult," which makes this no more or less redundant that the version I posed.
e) Alternatively, the latter might be read as a differentiation between "foul language" and "personal attacks," but the actual difference is still unclear. (Even to say that personal attacks are foul language directed at a person. However, by common sense, there can be actions interpretable as "personal attacks" that don't involve "foul language.")

Commenting on my own post:

a) The first line, "Personal attacks are allowed, unless complaint is given," seems to permit that complaints given by somebody aside from the target will still be honored by forum staff. This probably shouldn't be the case.
b) In the case of complaint by nontarget, the burden of proof that an attack was intended might fall to the complainer?
c) Something equivalent to Pidl's line, "the mods will remove it and warn the perpetrator" should be appended after "the target may request to have them removed," because what I wrote fails to indicate the standard enforcement action.
d) What constitutes a "personal attack" is left vague and undefined. It should probably be along the lines of "actions reasonably perceived by a target to be directed against them, as an attack." The moderation team is thus left to deliberate whether an action is "reasonable" on report, case by case.
e) As a note, under the above, there is no functional distinction intended between "foul language" and "personal attacks." These rules would treat the two entities as exactly identical.

In general, I guess, the more complex and unnecessary the wording is, the more difficult it is to enforce.
 

pidl

Well-Known Member
#45
How about instead of:
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.
We use:
3) Personal attacks are used at your own risk, 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.

And I thought the difference between foul language (expletives and slurs) and personal attacks is pretty obvious.
 

NuitTombee

Immortal Capo
#46
Personal Attack: "Shut up you whinny little pussy."
Foul Language: "Why the fuck would I do that?"
 

fallacies

Well-Known Member
#47
Doesn't need to be a distinction at all, for simplicity of defining moderation guidelines.
 

pidl

Well-Known Member
#48
fallacies said:
Doesn't need to be a distinction at all, for simplicity of defining moderation guidelines.
But if there's no distinction, then they would be the same in the eyes of the mods. Which is wrong, since one is always allowed (foul language) and the other only as long as the victim doesn't report it (personal attacks).

And just as it's possible to use foul language without a personal attack, it's also possible to do a personal attack without using foul language.
 

chronodekar

Obsessively signs his posts
Staff member
#49
At least everyone seems to have a broad understanding of how the rules are intended to be enforced.

I'll be honest - writing up legalese is NOT my specialty, but I do understand the need for it.

The exact wording of the official unabridged rules has caused confusion to some members. The following is the forum staff's stance on how they will be interpreted.

Rule Clarifications

Category Three: Personal Attacks and Racism
The intent of these rules is to protect regular forum posters from flamers and other unwanted troublemakers.

GenocideHeart pid='1164365' dateline='1367625309' said:
Simply put, you insult someone at your own peril. If they decide to respond in kind and start a flamewar rather than report, then good for you, you're in the clear. Knock yourself out and tear each other to pieces. If, however, they take offense and report you, then mods will take action and it'll really be no one's fault but yours for being a rude git.
In general, please try to remember what kind of community TFF strives to become when you make a post.

foesjoe pid='1164144' dateline='1367590811' said:
This place should be about helping authors write interesting stories and providing constructive criticism.
And finally an alternate rewording of Category Three,

TO FILL IN
[hr]
This post will be edited to issue further clarifications as needed.

If you folks can come to an understanding of HOW to fill in the above blank, I'll propose the staff to add it as a 'addendum/clarification' on the 'unabridged rules' thread. All I ask is that we try to keep things simple. Remember, 13 year olds can visit the forum and its best we have something they understand as well.

-chronodekar
 

pidl

Well-Known Member
#50
My proposal is:

1) Foul language is allowed, don't come crying because someone used an expletive or slur.
3) Personal attacks are used at your own risk. No action will be taken if there is no report, but if the target of the personal attack has an issue with it and reports it, the mods will remove it and you get a warning. Further personal attacks against that person will have bans as a result.
4) Not every insulting word is meant as an insult.
 
Top