The Rules

Cherry_lover

Well-Known Member
#51
foesjoe said:
I'm not okay with your Category Three rule and think it should be changed.

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."
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:

Play nice with the other members on the forums. That means no insults, condescending comments or whatever in the posts. Constructive criticism ( I don't like this because xxxxxx, it would be better if you xxxxx. ) is not only allowed, but encouraged. Whatever you get up to in PM or private e-mails is none of our concern, but you'd better play nice in the posts.
We voted on the rules and agreed on these rules. If you don't like them, then tough. You might want this community to be censored and harsh, but the majority of the members do not.

foesjoe said:
Shirotsume said:
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.
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.
It has been by default for the last 4-5 years, because old TFF had no moderation, and thus anything was allowed.

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.
That is your opinion. Personally, I think people get angry sometimes and I think different people talk in different ways. You do not have the right to impose your beliefs on me or anyone else. You do not have to take notice of those insults, we do have to take notice of the rules.

foesjoe said:
chronodekar 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.
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?
Have you considered the possibility that most of us don't care what Hawks rules were, and that we decided we wanted to keep TFF going because of the generally-relaxed nature that came from having no moderation?

If we wanted stupidly over-moderated forums, there are plenty of those already out there. We created a new version of TFF because, whilst we liked the atmosphere of old TFF, not being able to admit new members, add new categories etc. meant it was inevitably going to die. The people who actually liked Hawks old ruleset and didn't like what TFF became in the later days disappeared long ago.

fallacies said:
chronodekar 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.
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.
Yes, but unenforced rules may as well not exist at all. No-one cared what the old TFF rules were, I don't think I even knew them.

fallacies said:
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.

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."
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.
Or, we could perhaps assume that not everyone is Lawful Stupid, and that admins are capable of using common sense on occasion....

I would much rather that than having ridiculously over-specific rules which asshole trolls dance around whilst legitimate posters get in trouble because their culture or posting style isn't in agreement with that of the admins.

pidl said:
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).
Presumably it's not quite that simple. I mean, I could report a random post and call it an "insult", doesn't mean it's automatically actionable.

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.
Yes, and nor are you....

Further, the rules were decided by community consensus, they can clearly only be ammended by the same consensus.

pidl said:
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.
This seems too harsh to me. It shouldn't be a case of "any second personal attack will result in a ban", that gives the mods far too little leeway to judge the situation. I think we should only be handing out bans for people who are consistently targetting one person for little or no reason.
 

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
#52
I'm gonna be honest- I not only dislike the rules people are suggesting, I'm violently against them. They change the intent of the rules that were voted for.

People voted for the lowest, weakest option when it came to these rules- and most complained that they were too restrictive. You guys are basically trying to sneak in more rules and restrictions on the rules we already have, and the rules you're suggesting are INCREDIBLY abusable. You don't get to change the intent of the rules. You aren't that important.

Right now, with the rules you're suggesting, I could go "What the fuck is that?" and get temp banned for foul language. That shit isn't going to fly.

You aren't trying to clarify the rules, you're trying to change them. I expected better of all of you- especially you, mods.

EDIT: We currently have "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. "

This is fine, and accurately reflects the rules intended.

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."

This needs to be clarified, without further restricting the rules people voted on.

I suggest this.

1. Non-directed slurs, crude language, and insults are allowed.
2. Personal attacks, whether slurs, crude language, or harmfully-intended insults, may be taken down at the target's request- you post them at your own peril, and will be advised not to do it again.

This encompass what the rules were meant to be in spirit, in my opinion. One thing that may need to be clarified- perhaps a line about how to tell if slurs, crude language, or harmfuly intended insults are meant as a personal attack?
For that, I almost feel like the 'porn identification' would be useful, e.g.

3. Personal attacks, while hard to define, are easily identified on sight. The mods will use their discretion here on if further punishment might be needed, but the offending insult may always be removed on request, without censoring the intent of the post.
 

pidl

Well-Known Member
#53
Shirotsume said:
I'm gonna be honest- I not only dislike the rules people are suggesting, I'm violently against them. They change the intent of the rules that were voted for.

People voted for the lowest, weakest option when it came to these rules- and most complained that they were too restrictive. You guys are basically trying to sneak in more rules and restrictions on the rules we already have, and the rules you're suggesting are INCREDIBLY abusable. You don't get to change the intent of the rules. You aren't that important.

Right now, with the rules you're suggesting, I could go "What the fuck is that?" and get temp banned for foul language. That shit isn't going to fly.

You aren't trying to clarify the rules, you're trying to change them. I expected better of all of you- especially you, mods.
I have no idea what you're talking about when you say we're sneaking in more rules and restrictions:s
Clarified rule 1, 3 & 4 say the same thing as the original, only more clear.

And what do you mean, temp-banned for foul language?
1) Foul language is allowed, don't come crying because someone used an expletive or slur.
@Cherry_lover
It wasn't my intent to imply that a second offence will get you banned. How about this?
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. Continued personal attacks against that person will lead to increasing punishments.
This will let the mods decide what punishment to give, yet also implies that if you keep on doing it, eventually you'll get banned.
 

fallacies

Well-Known Member
#54
Category Three: Personal Attacks and Racism

Definitions: A 'personal attack' is defined as an action that may be reasonably judged as an offense directed at a given poster. Whether such a judgment is in fact reasonable may be deliberated by the forum staff where it becomes relevant, as defined below.

1) Personal attacks, including slurs and foul language, are in all instances permitted, unless an official complaint is submitted by report to the forum staff. Outside the context of a personal attack, slurs and foul language are in all instances permitted.
2) Reports submitted by a target of attack requesting removal of offending content will be honored. Following removal, posts in a similar theme will be discouraged. If offensive behavior continues, further administrative actions may be taken by the forum staff.
3) In the event that submission of complaint is performed by a non-target, no action will be taken by the forum staff in the absence of absolute evidence of harmful intent.

For quick reference, the original rules are as such:

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."
 

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
#55
When you attempt to put something like "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 the rules, you're explicitly saying "Insults are not allowed. If you don't get reported, nice luck, but if anyone reports you BAIBAI."
Which is how everything works- if you aren't reported, you don't get in trouble for breaking a rule. so really, it just says "Insults are not allowed."

That's not even just downright changing it a little bit- that's completely REVERSING the rules from the alternative over 80% of TFF voted for to the alternative like 5% voted for.
 

pidl

Well-Known Member
#56
Shirotsume said:
When you attempt to put something like "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 the rules, you're explicitly saying "Insults are not allowed. If you don't get reported, nice luck, but if anyone reports you BAIBAI."
Which is how everything works- if you aren't reported, you don't get in trouble for breaking a rule. so really, it just says "Insults are not allowed."

That's not even just downright changing it a little bit- that's completely REVERSING the rules from the alternative over 80% of TFF voted for to the alternative like 5% voted for.
And how is that rule any different from the original rule 3?
3. Personal attacks may be taken down at the target's request, at which point re-posting will be discouraged.
 

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
#57
Taking action (tempbanning) for saying someone is a git is a hell of a lot different from being told "Don't do that again" for personally attacking someone.
 

pidl

Well-Known Member
#58
Shirotsume said:
Taking action (tempbanning) for saying someone is a git is a hell of a lot different from being told "Don't do that again" for personally attacking someone.
But nowhere does it say that taking action automatically involves tempbanning? And I was under the assumption that when told "Not to do that again" and you did it anyway, repeatedly, you'd get temp-banned as well.
 

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
#59
I meant to say 'tempbanning, for example'
 

pidl

Well-Known Member
#60
Shirotsume said:
I meant to say 'tempbanning, for example'
But the original rule 3 will lead to tempbanning as well? So I don't see the difference between them. (Although I'm assuming the reported insult would be a bit harsher than 'git')
 

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
#61
The thing is, the original rule three takes into account if the reported word is "git" and says the moderators ignore it.

The new version says you get punished anyway.
 

pidl

Well-Known Member
#62
Shirotsume said:
The thing is, the original rule three takes into account if the reported word is "git" and says the moderators ignore it.

The new version says you get punished anyway.
Huh? where does the original one say that?
 

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
#63
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."


Also, updated version of my suggestion:

1. Non-directed slurs, crude language, and insults are allowed.
2. Personal attacks, whether slurs, crude language, or harmfully-intended insults, may be taken down at the target's request- you post them at your own peril, and will be advised not to do it again.
3. Personal attacks, while hard to define, are usually identifiable on sight. If they aren't, it will be the responsibility of the reporter to convey the attack. The mods will use their discretion here on if further punishment might be needed, but the offending attack may always be removed on request, without censoring the intent of the post.

Changes in italics.
 

pidl

Well-Known Member
#64
Shirotsume said:
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."


Also, updated version of my suggestion:

1. Non-directed slurs, crude language, and insults are allowed.
2. Personal attacks, whether slurs, crude language, or harmfully-intended insults, may be taken down at the target's request- you post them at your own peril, and will be advised not to do it again.
3. Personal attacks, while hard to define, are usually identifiable on sight. If they aren't, it will be the responsibility of the reporter to convey the attack. The mods will use their discretion here on if further punishment might be needed, but the offending attack may always be removed on request, without censoring the intent of the post.

Changes in italics.
That was rule 1, not 3 :p
The way I understood it rule 1 has nothing to do with personal attacks, only with foul language. Rule 3 is about personal attacks and rule 4 is about how you shouldn't be a crybaby.

Your version of the rules isn't really different from the one I proposed btw.
 

chronodekar

Obsessively signs his posts
Staff member
#65
I have to say, I like fallacies way of putting things.

And with a heated discussion going on in the IRC over the matter, I think the crux of Shirotsume's concern is that we're trying to implement some kind of 'insults are NOT allowed' rule. This is NOT the case.

Let me try to re-phrase my 'clarification' again,
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

fallacies said:
Definitions: A 'personal attack' is defined as an action that may be reasonably judged as an offense directed at a given poster. Whether such a judgment is in fact reasonable may be deliberated by the forum staff where it becomes relevant, as defined below.

1) Personal attacks, including slurs and foul language, are in all instances permitted, unless an official complaint is submitted by report to the forum staff. Outside the context of a personal attack, slurs and foul language are in all instances permitted.
2) Reports submitted by a target of attack requesting removal of offending content will be honored. Following removal, posts in a similar theme will be discouraged. If offensive behavior continues, further administrative actions may be taken by the forum staff.
3) In the event that submission of complaint is performed by a non-target, no action will be taken by the forum staff in the absence of absolute evidence of harmful intent.
In a nutshell, you can use slurs/bad language on the forum. The concern is if someone takes it personally and files a report. The staff will judge if the complaint was reasonable. If so, you will be told to refrain from similar action. Depending on context, if your behavior is repeated, punishment (such as temp-bans) might be issued. This is NOT to say that the second/third time you call someone 'git' or 'idiot' you will be temp-banned. It is a complicated matter and will vary case-to-case.

Above all, please note that the intent of these rules is to protect regular forum posters from flamers and other unwanted troublemakers. 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.
If your actions (and possibly intent) are in-line with the above, rest assured, the staff will take it into consideration if an issue pops up.

[hr]
This post will be edited to issue further clarifications as needed.
====================================================

I hope this addresses everyone's concerns?

-chronodekar
 

pidl

Well-Known Member
#66
Perhaps we could also add that you can't insult someone first and then report him when he returns the favour?
 

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
#67
The crux of my concern was that, regardless of intent, the wording did in fact say that insults were not allowed.

As for the suggested one, it seems OKish, but it's missing the clause where the person, in the event of a more subtle attack, has the responsibility of showing the staff the attack.

The issue here is that, there are a few versions of the rules floating about being suggested. They all are intended to mean the same thing, but the actual text of them do not.

It doesn't matter what the intent of the rules are, only the actually words. For that reason, I'm biased towards m suggestion, but I'll look at the suggested one by chrono and see what issues may arise.



EDIT: pidl, that sounds like something up to the mods. What if one person is complaining, another person says "You're being a bitch, stop," Then the first guy that was complaining goes into a multi-paragraph rant about the other.

The guy who called him a bitch can, and should be able to report that.

And before you say I'm stretching things, that example happened here on TFF.


EDIT2: And why we're at it, can we clarify that, along with the other things that are disallowed because they will get TFF shut down, that actions in general that will get TFF shut down are not allowed either?

It's fairly obvious as is imo, but it looks like it will make people feel a lot better.
 

pidl

Well-Known Member
#68
Shirotsume said:
The crux of my concern was that, regardless of intent, the wording did in fact say that insults were not allowed.

As for the suggested one, it seems OKish, but it's missing the clause where the person, in the event of a more subtle attack, has the responsibility of showing the staff the attack.
I figured if the target fails to show the staff the attack, there isn't a report of a personal attack and they will do nothing. So it's already built in the rules that in order to remove a subtle attack, the person must be able to show it.

Shirotsume said:
EDIT: pidl, that sounds like something up to the mods. What if one person is complaining, another person says "You're being a bitch, stop," Then the first guy that was complaining goes into a multi-paragraph rant about the other.

The guy who called him a bitch can, and should be able to report that.

And before you say I'm stretching things, that example happened here on TFF.
True, but I was kinda hoping common sense would make it obvious that it only applies when both persons are slinging around personal attacks in the same order of magnitude.
 

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
#69
pidl said:
True, but I was kinda hoping common sense would make it obvious that it only applies when both persons are slinging around personal attacks in the same order of magnitude.
Too much, man.

You ask for too much.
 

pidl

Well-Known Member
#70
Shirotsume said:
pidl said:
True, but I was kinda hoping common sense would make it obvious that it only applies when both persons are slinging around personal attacks in the same order of magnitude.
Too much, man.

You ask for too much.
Fine, how about world peace?
 

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
#71
Slightly more doable.
 

fallacies

Well-Known Member
#72
Shirotsume said:
As for the suggested one, it seems OKish, but it's missing the clause where the person, in the event of a more subtle attack, has the responsibility of showing the staff the attack.
So are you saying that a person who perceives themselves as having been targeted by a personal attack must supply absolute proof that an offense has been committed with intent to be hurtful before the moderators will comply with a removal request? Because that sounds an awful lot 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."

The moment that a target reports an attack, the first course of action will naturally be for the staff to investigate the issue and read through the thread -- so "showing the attack" is a given that will happen anyhow. Whether or not a purported "offense" can be reasonably judged as such should be at the moderator's deliberation. If it isn't, the moderators would just tell the supposed target that they're being oversensitive, and maybe issue a reminder to keep things civil.

This whole thing about "demanding proof of offense" from the complainer is confusing and needless -- because with how subjective it is, by default, absolute proof wouldn't be easily obtainable; or maybe not at all obtainable, because every troll of fair intelligence will loudly proclaim that they meant everything they said in jest. Why are we putting hurdles before somebody who perceives themselves to have been targeted by an attack? The 'danger' that they're abusing the reporting system really doesn't exist, because reports are manually processed case by case anyways. There's little chance that a moderator will be swayed by an unreasonable accusation of offense. Repeated superfluous accusations by a self-proclaimed target would probably result in their own punishment or warning.

Are we just in-building impassible obstacles within the system to dissuade people from submitting hypothetically superfluous reports that won't be honored by a moderator anyways?
 

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
#73
No.

My suggestions sums it up well. "Personal attacks, while hard to define, are usually identifiable on sight. If they aren't, it will be the responsibility of the reporter to convey the attack. The mods will use their discretion here on if further punishment might be needed, but the offending attack may always be removed on request, without censoring the intent of the post."

If it's an attack, then mods take care of it. However, if the mods can't identify it as an attack (they're missing information that makes it a personal attack), then it's the responsibility of the reporter to supply the information of why it's a personal attack to the mods.

e.g. Let's say you have cancer. Asshole A knows this, lets say from MSN, and wishes to exploit it.
Mods do not know that you have cancer.
If asshole A says "You're a cancer on society," that's not really a thing that would get the person in too much trouble, because the mods don't know you have cancer and so to them it's just a random comment- e.g. it's your job to tell the mods "Hey, not cool, I have cancer and he knew that and is trying to be a douche about it."

This isn't the best example, because "You're a cancer on society" might be considered a personal attack as well, depending on how it's delivered, but I'm trying to pack atm. I would appreciate it if someone could make an example that would better explain what I'm saying.

EDIT: Real fast, better example that hit me, from a reddit thread last night. Replace cancer with "had an abortion." and "You're a cancer on society" with "Happy Mother's Day."
 

pidl

Well-Known Member
#74
Making 'your mother' jokes while the person knows your mother just passed away?
 

GenocideHeart

Well-Known Member
#75
pidl said:
Making 'your mother' jokes while the person knows your mother just passed away?
Yeah, that'd be the kind of thing that'd draw more than a frown from anyone with a shred of decency in their hearts.
 
Top