*An update to the forum rules.*

[LoganAura]

This is not targeted at anyone. If anything this is to avoid incidents like my own early in the forum's lifespan where I was simply given a warning when I was being hostile to another a few weeks after a previous incident. And to avoid possible incidents where a person is persistently breaking the rules right after the window for the warning has passed (While this has not happened yet, I am fond of being preventive rather than reactive.)
To update the rules slightly, effective immediately, all official warnings will be effective for three months, rather than the week-or-so that the previous warnings were allotted. This means that, even if you had been given a warning for breaking a certain rule (excessive cussing-outside of roleplaying scenarios as an example) a month prior, if you break it again, you are treated as though you had just been warned, and will proceed along the moderation guide Cary had written out from that point.

Each type of warning is isolated. For cussing, for hostility, for flaming, for attacking a fellow forum goer, etc.

This will ONLY account for warnings that take place AFTER this point.

If you have a question, feel free to PM me about this. Or reply

[Ramsus]

You realize this is completely incomprehensible to anyone not a staff member right? We can't view our warnings, aside from those on the public humiliation bar which seems to last for ages (and I know for a fact lasts until you complain to a staff member that it was due to be changed), assuming there's even an actual tracker on the forum for them. As far as any non-staff members are concerned, this just means you've shifted from incomprehensible draconian rules structure A to incomprehensible rules structure B. And it doesn't matter one bit as, the staff never punishes or warns other staff members as far as the rest of us can tell and ignores and punishes rules violations seemingly in accordance to how much they personally care/at random. Since it's punishable to even express our disapproval of the ways staff members behave and the rules topic is locked discouraging us from debating or questioning their wisdom, I don't see the point in this. You're just doing whatever your clique wants no matter what the heck the rest of us think either way.

[LoganAura]

If someone was warned, generally unless that same someone did the same thing again within a week or two, they would be treated as though the event never happened.

Now, the warning lasts for three months instead of the week or two.

There is an actual tracker about the dates that warnings and bans are given out: In the moderator-admin only area, that will be used to keep track of the warning start dates, and end dates. Along with that, there will be edits to the profile where the warning end date is.

If someone is deemed to deserve a warning by two or more mod/admins, they are given one. If not? They aren't even given any official warning, instead just being told to stop breaking the rule. The staff speaks to one another in private chats over skype, so it's no surprise it doesn't seem like we converse to people who are only on the forum.

It is not punishable to express your distaste in how us as staff behave, just so long as you do it calmly, rationally, and without attacking the staff members or anyone else for that matter. For example, I expressed my personal distaste in the leniency in regards to warnings and bans, and this is what came out of it.

Thank you for your input Ramsus.

[Ramsus]

Right because being too lenient was a major problem for you guys with your already over the top rules on a forum where people seem to be more or less naturally inclined to be nice, aside from the people making the rules.

It may not be punishable to express our dislike for staff behavior but, it is against the rules to make a thread about it. Which basically prevents any actual discussion on that kind of topic.

Heck, iirc I got banned once for simply suggesting actually reasonable rules for this kind of community. So, you can say what you want about your policies but, frankly, we have more proof to suggest you guys ignore the rules and just do whatever you like than the other way around. (I could make a list if you liked.) It would be nice if you could at least not shove it in our face that we have no say in how we're treated or what we're allowed by your friends to say to each other, even when both parties would consent.

[LoganAura]

Know I've previously said I had a distaste for this, but I do realize it does help show that you're reading what the person is said

Right because being too lenient was a major problem for you guys with your already over the top rules on a forum where people seem to be more or less naturally inclined to be nice, aside from the people making the rules.

They're not really over the top. Some people are inclined to the rules because they read and pay attention to them, and others who are not-so-inclined in the future who come here.
I don't appreciate you insulting Chad or anyone else though. Trying to grow a thick skin myself, so it doesn't bother me as much.

It may not be punishable to express our dislike for staff behavior but, it is against the rules to make a thread about it. Which basically prevents any actual discussion on that kind of topic.

All right then. Bring it up with Chad and the like and see if they're willing to allow a thread dedicated for complaints against the moderation staff. As long as they're kept relatively calm and, while a complaint, not just plain insulting, I'm good myself.

Heck, iirc I got banned once for simply suggesting actually reasonable rules for this kind of community.

Actually, that thread of yours is still currently in the "Basket", a place where deleted threads go, and the reason you had been banned almost a year ago (Wow, has it really been a year since this whole thing started?) was... Let me see... Ah, repeated insults within a thread at the expense of various people, specifically Dan and Cary, and practically ordering them to apologize to you for doing their jobs as an admin banning someone who had been breaking various rules (IE the insults) along with various... well, for lack of a better word trolling, remarks towards Cary and Dan. Though there IS a chance you are speaking about a different time than last August. And a bit of rules lawyering at the time... and comments about the admins at that point forcing you to do things... And trolling... And a comment about "You can't ban me because you'll look like the bad guys ha ha"... yeah, looking back at this, I'm glad you're a better person now

So, you can say what you want about your policies but, frankly, we have more proof to suggest you guys ignore the rules and just do whatever you like than the other way around. (I could make a list if you liked.) It would be nice if you could at least not shove it in our face that we have no say in how we're treated or what we're allowed by your friends to say to each other, even when both parties would consent.

I... Don't really see how this is as bad as you're implying here. We don't ignore the rules but enforce them, and.... Well being blunt, if both parties are perfectly fine slewing insults and hostility at one another (From an outside perspective at least) they can do it in PMs and outside of a thread, since that sort of thing is widely not a happy thing to find when you wake up in the morning/come home from work/what have you.. I'm not trying to shove anything in people's faces.

Also, I would rather not have a list.

This is, being frank, simply a deterrent. It's meant to keep people from doing what admittedly had happened to /me/ around four months ago, where within 2 weeks I had gotten 2 warnings, both for hostility towards another member and nothing worse than that, on purpose.

[Hayatecooper]

It's meant to keep people from doing what admittedly had happened to /me/ around four months ago, where within 2 weeks I had gotten 2 warnings, both for hostility towards another member and nothing worse than that, on purpose.

So... if I'm reading this right..
it's now going to take longer for warnings to ware off because you argued with people on purpose and don't feel you got punished enough?
I'm confused.

Also, meh, longer warning times neither yay or nay. If you're smart you're going to just get you and the other person warnings and watch them get themselves in more trouble/banned anyway *shrugs*

[LoganAura]

No I didn't mean that I had done it on purpose, it's a precaution so others don't.

What I mean is: I didn't act hostile on purpose, I just got riled up. Others might be hostile on purpose because all they can get are warnings.

That was just an example that didn't target any specific other forum members. There has been issues where individuals had been given multiple warnings a few days after the short timespan had passed, and this is both to keep that from happening (I had used myself as an example to keep from targetting any other forum members) and to keep people from abusing it further.

[Ramsus]

Not really sure how I insulted Chad anywhere in there unless he was the one who came up with the rules. I always figured it was a group effort or the ideas of the one who posted them. Certainly in prior discussions about them, I've never seen him be the one defending them. So really, I had no idea he was at all involved. (In fact, I don't believe I even knew he existed until quite a while after that.)

Actually, that thread of yours is still currently in the "Basket", a place where deleted threads go, and the reason you had been banned almost a year ago (Wow, has it really been a year since this whole thing started?) was... Let me see... Ah, repeated insults within a thread at the expense of various people, specifically Dan and Cary, and practically ordering them to apologize to you for doing their jobs as an admin banning someone who had been breaking various rules (IE the insults) along with various... well, for lack of a better word trolling, remarks towards Cary and Dan. Though there IS a chance you are speaking about a different time than last August. And a bit of rules lawyering at the time... and comments about the admins at that point forcing you to do things... And trolling... And a comment about "You can't ban me because you'll look like the bad guys ha ha"...

That's an.... interesting interpretation of events but, I'd say not a very accurate one. (Also I'm not entirely sure it's wise for us to be even discussing this in detail but.... whatever, there's no way I'm just leaving your version out there without a response.) So let's see. While I can't see the thread myself since it was deleted I'll have to do my best from memory and conjecture. I'm going to assume any demands people apologize to me were for banning me for breaking rules that didn't exist or breaking promises to me while having threatened me into a position of fulfilling my side of the agreement. What you call trolling (and what was called so then) was likely simply my viewpoints on what would be a better way to do things. Just because you guys disagree with my opinions doesn't make it trolling. In fact, considering the thread in question was me giving suggestions for forum rules that was derailed by the staff for the purposes of further antagonizing me basically for what I can still only gather as for shits and giggles and a bucketful of spite, it's rather surprising/amusing to hear you characterize my behavior as trolling. Not that I really expect anyone in your clique to have a view not completely biased in your favors. As for the comment, if I said it, it was only because it'd be true. To clarify the meaning would have been that not only would they have been the bad guys, it would have been clear to others that they were. (In fact by and large I'm pretty sure few people have yet to pat them on the back for banning someone for breaking rules that didn't exist and claiming they applied retroactively when the cause for my breaking those rules was because I was being threatened to do non-specific behavior adjustment because people who never stepped forward had unspecified problems. Btw, I still have no idea how anyone involved thought any part of how you guys treated me was either morally or logically sound.)

yeah, looking back at this, I'm glad you're a better person now

Hey, I was always a better person. *grins* (Really, you walked right into that one.) But, seriously... My opinions and views haven't changed, only that eventually somewhere in all the pointless threats and punishments I managed to get enough actual conversations in with Dan that I figured out what the heck it was you guys actually wanted. Which as it turns out is stifling our honest opinions and practically killing the ability to actually form real understandings with each other in favor of giving false smiles at everyone about everything regardless of what you really think and having to just suck it up wondering what's on everyone else's mind because nobody is really allowed to tell you what they honestly think.

Edit 2: If you decide this wasn't a great discussion to be having, I'm willing to edit the above out if you edit out what I'm responding to.

Edit: One important issue on this whole warning topic though, you guys aren't very clear as what counts as what kind of warning, how long they last, what they mean, etc. So yes, someone might have got eight warnings in two weeks and still have had no idea at all they were on thin ice with you guys.

[AProcrastinatingWriter]

It is possible to get across honest opinions and criticisms in a manner that is generally positive and not at all insulting, and is certainly possible to get one's opinion across without being argumentative about it. I believe this, rather than some sort of censorship on negative opinions, is what the rules here are attempting to keep in service, for lack of a better term. Well, there's a better term, but I can't think of it at the moment.

For example: Logan, while I do appreciate that you are in the middle of a heated discussion and do not believe you to be a bad guy in general, I believe your comment that you are "glad [Ramsus] is a better person now" went over the line. Ramsus himself does not seem too perturbed by it, but I cannot help but feel that speaking in such a manner is unprofessional behavior for a moderator of these forums to be engaging in. If you feel I am wrong, I am open to discussion, and I am sorry if I have offended you.

[Hayatecooper]

No I didn't mean that I had done it on purpose, it's a precaution so others don't.

What I mean is: I didn't act hostile on purpose, I just got riled up. Others might be hostile on purpose because all they can get are warnings.

that was just an example that didn't target any specific other forum members. There has been issues where individuals had been given multiple warnings a few days after the short timespan had passed, and this is both to keep that from happening (I had used myself as an example to keep from targetting any other forum members) and to keep people from abusing it further.

That does make more sense.. sorry about that

[LoganAura]

I didn't intend for it to come across as rude or insulting or anyhing. Merely a comment that I was happy that Ramsus hadn't been at the right-before-getting-banned level and that he was different. My apologies.

[Ramsus]

Proc, I've found myself in quite a few situations where I had an opinion I wanted to express but, simply could make no attempt at all because of the way the rules are and are enforced. It is not always clear what is insulting to others. I certainly did find Logan's statement insulting, however I haven't been met with a lot of success on direct complaints for people to stop insulting me, so instead I just opted to make a joke out of it and otherwise ignore it. There's more to that but, well perfect example, I can't express my thoughts on the matter without potentially insulting Logan.

Regardless of intent, the rules themselves and the enforcement of them are censorship and not just of "bad things" but, of anything that you can say "will someone claim this is a bad thing?" And this careful tap-dancing around explosive eggshells I feel keeps us all at arms length from each other. I'm never going to agree that rules that ignore the basic concepts of compassion and understanding, to instead have glaring overlords warning us to never step out of line, have a place in a forum such as this one. (Note: I'm not saying the staff wishes to be glaring overlords, simply that that's what the rules put them in the position of being.)

[LoganAura]

Ignore the basic concepts of compassion and understanding
Keep us at arms length from each other

I'm mostly waiting for another staff member to come in (For reasons later in this post), but... you're kidding right? Every rule is to KEEP people nice, calm, and quiet. Often when people are rageful and fighting (This is from personal experience not twenty minutes ago in real life that I had done) they can have clouded judgement, be irrational, and NOT willing to understand the other-or anyone period- at all.

And honestly, you seem to be the only one with a complaint at all about the rules, or moderation staff for that matter. And please don't say "I'm sure I'm not alone, the others are just scared to respond". I will WILLINGLY accept a pm from anyone (other than you since you've made your stance on the moderation staff clear) if they dislike the way we go about moderating.

I'm going to step aside for a bit because, as I said above, I'm still angry and annoyed at someone and am having a terrible day in general and I don't want to do an irrational response.

Once again, I'm sorry that what I meant as a compliment came off as an insult. I tend to do that accidentally.

[Ramsus]

KEEP people nice, calm, and quiet.

Yeah first off, you don't need to be keeping people anything. If you help people work out their differences, they will get along because they do, not in spite of their feelings to the contrary. Also for the quiet thing... that's not a good thing. You can't control what they become quiet about.

Often when people are rageful and fighting (This is from personal experience not twenty minutes ago in real life that I had done) they can have clouded judgement, be irrational, and NOT willing to understand the other-or anyone period- at all.

I wasn't talking about people in the arguments having compassion and understanding, I was talking about the rules enforcers. Brute force isn't the only way to handle problems. There have been very few situations on the forum that actually required demanding people stop talking and consequently stop trying to understand each other. Fury's red posts are really the only thing that come to mind and since as far as I know he hasn't been banned, it means he still listens when you tell him to stop. If people stop when you ask them to there's actually no need for any of the punishments in the first place and they only serve to gratify the staff's egos.

I wasn't planning on saying people are afraid to disagree with you guys to your faces (though there probably are a few people who feel that way). An assurance you're a cool reasonable guy isn't gonna help since it's not backed up by evidence. I would say people mostly just are completely apathetic or don't even realize what's wrong with it because they're used to this kind of stifling mindset since it's incredibly rare that anyone running anything on the internet doesn't approach the situation as if they've become supreme dictator of their tiny little internet country.

[LoganAura]

...
I'm not going to respond to that because I'm having a bad day as I said.
I'm stepping away from the whole FORUMS for a day. So I don't respond to that.

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

While I don't really see the need for this increase in warning duration, as people seem to be generally courteous around here and take steps to correct their behavior when they receive warnings, it also makes sense to me to put rules in place *before* it becomes a problem. I don't think anyone has tried to game the system like this, but it's technically possible. And as Ramsus did bring up, it's hard to follow rules before you know you're supposed to follow them.

However, I'm still really unsure about the extended duration of warnings. I know people have bad days sometimes, or that text can come off as sarcastic or offensive when it's just meant to be joking.

So I'm very unsure whether making warnings and similar last longer, even without changing any of the actual rules, is a good idea. I suppose we'll try it out for a while - and if it starts causing trouble we'll just change it back to the old way of doing things.

TLDR; I'm conflicted with regards to this rules change, but I'm keeping open to the idea. If it turns out to be great, awesome. If it doesn't, we'll change it later.

[Ramsus]

Because Logan has sent me another harassment PM claiming I've insulted the staff with my criticisms and broken the lying to the staff rule somehow by stating a fact and an opinion and Dan has decided that this is acceptable and approved behavior from Logan, I am no longer going to be contributing to this system as it appears I am not allowed to have any kind of opinion without Logan bullying me. Good job man, you just proved every point I made.

Edit 2: It looks like I made a bit of a mistake. Buried under three paragraphs of stuff Logan wanted to punish me for was a line I mistook for his signature (and thus didn't see) about the official warning being for flaming and trolling. (Which still doesn't match my view of events.)

Edit: Though, I am a reasonable person. If Logan would like to rescind his warning and apologize I'll shrug the whole thing off as a mistake.

[Hayatecooper]

I love admin posts
They get the best responses.

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

*laughs* They do generate a buzz, don't they?

If anyone does want to find out what actually happened, you can check this spoiler. Any further conversation here on this topic is inappropriate. It's just an announcement thread.

Moderation Stuff:

[AProcrastinatingWriter]

When did Ramsus ever lie to the staff? And if he was being disrespectful in some way with his attitude, wasn't LoganAura being disrespectful right back? Shouldn't he also get a warning, then?

[LoganAura]

"I considered filing that under "Lying to the moderation staff", however this could just be an misunderstanding/mis-remembering, so there is no official warning for those either."

Direct quote from my warning to Ramsus. He is not under a warning for lying, simply for being hostile and trolling (As in trying to get a rise out of me with his remarks, primarily attacks against my the moderators/my friends after I had said I didn't appreciate it, and after he knows I do not like it when my friends are insulted.)

As Dan said, this is not the place for that, however if another member of the moderation staff feels that my remarks had also been hostile (Particularly Chad and Kindu since I am not directly friends with them) I will gladly give myself a warning.


End of discussion, at least in the thread. If you wish to continue, please move it elsewhere, such as pms.

[thematthew]

And a comment about "You can't ban me because you'll look like the bad guys ha ha"

. Hey, I'm pretty sure that was me actually...  but seriously, the one time I think I might have gotten a warning I never found out if I had actually been warned.

Also, on the subject of the rules themselves, they really don't seem to do anything but cause arguments, which is funny since they really can be summed up as don't be a dick.  Oh, and listen to the mods, which I find funny, since those who must be vocal about the respect they deserve don't tend to deserve any.  But that's just my opinion from seeing far too many people like that in power.

[RavenscroftRaven]

I think a month-long duration is a better time-frame, personally. A week is short enough that a hater may come back, or a person may recur their issues. A month is a bit much for haters and trolls, but allows for the possibility of bad days or bigger misunderstandings to happen up to 12 times per year, which really isn't all that much in the grand scheme of things, especially for more active posters (the more you post, the more likely you are to cause a misunderstanding with someone, after all, just law of averages). Two seems a bit much for timespan, but that will be for you folks to determine. I'd expect judgment to be a factor in that, too (two transgressions in the old system was clearly bad, since it was, like, a week, but now, clearly two transgressions 4.5 days apart and 45 days apart are vastly different animals in some cases). I think the mods here have a fairly light hand, all things considered, people have gotten away with things on here that would get them banned on the 'chans, or blogs, or political websites, or any number of other media... But the new rule will bring more of their judgement into play than before. Hopefully it stays pretty much the same.

I would like a better documentation of warnings, though. Like how in your profile you can see your favourites or your topics being watched, and those are private to just you, one more tab there for warnings and their expiry. I'd not advise keeping them there, only putting the active warnings, so people don't "collect" them, but just a possible long-time-later suggestion that seemed somewhat on-topic.

Then again, I can see the merit in not overtly showing the expiry date on warnings, since it'll ideally make people err on the side of caution when talking, but I feel a little possible scuffling is worth the transparency.

Now, disclosures: I've never been (formally) warned that I know of, though I have had misunderstanding intercessions. Some of my suggestions in game balance et cetera to the mods/admins have been ignored/missed but never attacked or mocked, etc etc, I'm just a long-runner here who mostly goes with the flow.

[Stairc -Dan Felder]

Great feedback, thanks.

It's a little difficult to figure out the proper time-frames, as the rules have to be broken 5 times or so in the time frame before a permanent banning. However, I agree that 4 days apart and 45 days apart are very different animals. There's a lot to take into account.

[Ramsus]

Chad (that'd be Nihil) has said from now on that he'll be the one handling giving me warning and such, so even though I still disagree with this rules structure in general and Logan's approach to his responsibilities, I do not currently feel I'll be under constant threat of ban without just cause. So, that means I can return to contributing.

As for the original topic, I think one month is still too long. Two weeks would do fine and wouldn't allow as much time for people to intentionally provoke responses from others in attempts to get them in trouble without the multiple incidents of such behavior fading from public perception. A month, and certainly two months, is just too long as it encourages irresponsible rules enforcers to behave in ways that aren't acceptable.

I still think this forum would be a better place for everyone without these kinds of rules at all though. Even the most "problematic" of people here respond well to being told something is a problem, why, and that people would like them to stop. The "every action we dislike must be punished!" mentality has clearly, in my opinion at least, done more to cause drama than anything else on this forum. I think I can pretty safely say that in almost every case where a ban or official warning was given, the punishment itself was completely unnecessary and only served to cause more ill will and drama than there was to begin with. As they say, if all you have is a hammer, even problem looks like a nail.

[Sponsored content]