foesjoe said:
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:
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."
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
And, well, locking the thread just because seems like a really preemptive action.
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.
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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Approve 1
- Show all