|
Post by T. Costa on Feb 4, 2009 0:22:26 GMT
Filters serve a purpose, and that purpose is to cover our butts, especially mine as the server-owner. If we didn't have young'ns I'd say "to hell with the swear filter," but we do, so I don't.
I don't know about the rest of the admins, but I don't particularly have a problem with bad language. It's knowing when and when not to use it that counts, not the words themselves. But unfortunately a great deal of the world does NOT see it that way.
|
|
|
Post by Bianka on Feb 4, 2009 6:31:40 GMT
Like Tasha, I don't particularly have a problem with bad language, either. There are times when swearing is unacceptable, however, and I'd like to think we all know when swearing is alright and is not. Again, like Tasha said, we're not trying to force politeness--just tact. But, yes, I do believe in a swear filter, for the reasons that Tasha has pointed out. As the new server-owner, Tasha will have to take responsibility for our posts in the event that they anger anyone. And I'd hate for her to do all this work for us out of the kindness of her heart and have it blow up in her face. In the past, I don't think swearing has been a big issue here, even when posters sneak around the filters. A big issue has been moderation, and I'd really like to see more opinions on that. So we can come up with a happy medium and all.
|
|
|
Post by Hope on Feb 4, 2009 11:56:26 GMT
Rule 3 has always seemed a little harsh to me. As I think was mentioned in the On Moderation thread, sometimes people want to comment on what someone's said, or to agree with someone, or just to say something funny. Not being able to do that makes the conversation feel a little restricted, imo.
I'm not saying that off topic posting shouldn't be moderated, because otherwise threads may well go off on tangents and their real purpose would be lost, but not every off topic comment is going to make that happen. Maybe rather than saying "no off topic posting" it could say something like "in order to retain the focus of debates, moderators will step in if threads run off at a tangent from the main topic". Or something. That way the odd comment is permissable, but threads stay generally focused.
|
|
|
Post by Youko-Kokuryuuha on Feb 5, 2009 0:52:33 GMT
Seems reasonable enough. Make's the rule sound less draconian and demanding, anyway.
But, to jump back to filters for a moment, I've always thought that the word "p****d" was hardly worthy of being censored. It's no more offensive that "crap," or something else along those lines, y'know?
...Should "douche-bag" be censored?
|
|
|
Post by Woodster on Feb 5, 2009 1:03:37 GMT
Ok, this thread has been up for three days now, and honestly, I'm disappointed with the response.
You weren't happy with the rules before, and so we're letting you rewrite them. This is your one and only chance, guys. If you don't get involved now, you'll have no grounds on which to complain later. And believe me when I say that I refuse to let any staff member take the flack over something that you don't like but we've had to decide, just because you didn't get involved when you had the chance.
If you don't mind the current rules, then say so. If you think something needs to be changed, then speak up. If you have a new idea, then suggest it. We've had some great suggestions so far, but we need more, and we need your help. We can't do it on our own.
So I'm setting a time limit. You have one week (until the 12th February) to decide what you want the new rules to be. If there's a good enough response, then I'll consider extending it. If not... Well, you'll have to live with what we decide.
|
|
|
Post by YACCBS on Feb 5, 2009 1:49:57 GMT
(You go, Wood.)
Bold part - here's where I personally feel we should implement the 'change it within such-and-such a time, or we change it for you' policy, in regards to borderline offensive comments. As for the time itself, I think it should only be a couple of hours, though maybe the post is on a non-public section it could be given more grace? Just throwin' it out there.
As far as avatars and sigs go, that's perfectly fine.
Good rule, though I don't think it's ever really been enforced anyways since no one ever breaks it. Huzzah intelligent writers' forums.
I think what others have said regarding offtopicness is good - people should be allowed to make one-post remarks in regards to another post, even if it is offtopic. But if it turns into a tangent, that's when the mods should step in.
No argument here.
Again, no argument.
I like this idea, but I'm neutral on it being an actual enforced rule.
Good, but might want to add that you can abbreviate it.
Excellent rule.
ENJOY IT OR BE BANNED.
Erm, as for anything additional...well I never had any major problem with how the forum was run. As far as the filter goes, I think it's good to keep it in place, though as Tasha said it would be nice to remove it from the Pit.
That's all my takes.
|
|
|
Post by T. Costa on Feb 5, 2009 2:04:48 GMT
But, to jump back to filters for a moment, I've always thought that the word "p****d" was hardly worthy of being censored. It's no more offensive that "crap," or something else along those lines, y'know?
...Should "douche-bag" be censored?I don't particularly find either of those particularly offensive, keeping in mind that you're going to hear those in average conversation amongst both tweens and adults. BUT, that's just where I live. I generally self-censor "douchebag" into "D-bag" anyway, just for simplicity's sake. Would you be opposed to it being switched that way? I don't feel "p****d" is even a real swear word. It's slang for so many different things in so many different places.
|
|
|
Post by Bianka on Feb 5, 2009 2:10:51 GMT
I know, right? You crack that whip, boss lady. ;D I'm just going to echo Wood's post and say please, everyone. Please respond to this thread and tell us what you agree and disagree with about the current rules. This thread is meant to benefit all members. If we can come up with rules that suit everyone, posters won't have to worry that they're going to be modded or warned, and staff members won't have to worry that they'll anger someone or make a hasty decision. And in the end, we should all know what the rules are because we all had a hand in writing them. That sounds pretty nice to me. And thank you to everyone who has responded! I particularly like how you, YAC, went through every rule. Very helpful. EDIT: p****d is filtered? Why, I don't think that's a swear word at all. Weird. Hehe, look at that, it's all starred out.
|
|
|
Post by Youko-Kokuryuuha on Feb 5, 2009 2:13:54 GMT
(editedit: Whoops, I totally posted after you, Bianka. x])
No, I don't see a problem there. And I brought up "p****d" because I'm pretty sure it's censored, which I thought was unnecessary.
...p****d. p**s. p**s-off, p**s off. (edit: Yeah, see, censored. Not that I have a problem with it. Just seems unnecessary. :/)
As for the rules, I don't have a problem with 'em; never did.
I think, though, that we should address the beginning of that first one (which Yaccy has so courteously bold-faced above), because it seems to be the source of the dissension.
We need to come to an agreement as to what exactly defines "civil," so we can cut back on future disputes.
Also, I don't posting in the Newbie's Board should be compulsory. If it's done for courtesy issues, then new members should have a choice in the matter. Forcing them to do so might give them an ill-deserved sense of foreboding, and make them think that the moderation of the forum is too uptight and overbearing. Which it isn't.
(Besides, I didn't do it.)
|
|
|
Post by MysticSpiritus on Feb 5, 2009 2:50:33 GMT
Since I never had an issue with the rules to start with, I shall be quite content with whatever is decided.
|
|
Lynn
Recruit
"Yuffie, this is childish."
Posts: 122
|
Post by Lynn on Feb 5, 2009 3:06:46 GMT
Haven't got much to say for or aggainst the rules, as I've always respected and obeyed them. They are meant to be guidlines in ensuring a peaceful pleasurable environment, and i believe they should be respected whether or not you agree with them. I'm just posting so that everyone understands that I appreciate the effort being made to cultivate the rules so that the forum appeals to all and that they are considered fair and just. The rules as they now appear seem reasonable, and I thank the many people whose thoughts and effort went into shaping them.
|
|
|
Post by La Editor on Feb 5, 2009 3:12:47 GMT
I'm trying to wrack my brain, but honestly, I never had a big problem with anything. I'll be fine with whatever happens, unless something that isn't sensible to me comes along.
Oh! How about this - like, every year, there's a thread like this/this thread opens up for a week/month/whatever amount of time? I think that it's sort of silly to think that whatever rules are going to come will be faultless. We try them out for a year, and then every February (or whatever time) everyone hammers out ideas and suggestions to try out for another year? That way we can keep what ideas we like, suggest ideas we'd just thought of, and discard rules that, for whatever reason, just didn't work out.
@koky: the reason people want new people to post in the newbies forum first is because of the few people who caused a lot of problems in the Shipping Wars thread. I think it's just a suggestion to avoid that type of trolling - where people only join to argue a specific point and then leave. Then again, that probably won't happen often.
|
|
|
Post by sixthlimb on Feb 5, 2009 4:38:11 GMT
I have no real qualms about the rules so far. I'll try not to sound like I've been hanging with gaia sailors too long. Things might get a bit bumpy with the off-topic thing because without a little off-topicness, I can't seem to make friendly ANY conversation around here.... And that makes me a sad panda...moreso than usual, anyways.
But you know, I'll be more than content to make do with whatever happens hereafter.
|
|
|
Post by La Editor on Feb 5, 2009 5:28:01 GMT
We present: La, in a blatant example of slight off-topicness that shouldn't get a warning because it very, very small.
*kicks Lib* Shut yer yap, sit down and drink yer goddang TEA Be a happy panda.
=]
I think the people who really knew what they were having problems with was Ren, Kas, Mengde, and Vulcan. Judging from the On Moderation thread - they had a pretty good handle on what they thought needed to be changed, so I think that they might have some suggestions in comparison to us kids who are not being helpful for the cause because we have no qualms. XD Though, I'm pretty sure not deleting posts covers a good portion of it.
|
|
|
Post by Moira Rose on Feb 5, 2009 7:26:37 GMT
This is fine, though we might want to make it clearer as to WHAT exactly is appropriate. I guess own discretion is needed?
Yes. Agreed. We're a site dedicated to good writing after all.
Ditto Hope. I think we should still put this as a rule, but enforcement must be reasonably lenient and digression to a small extent should be tolerated.
No argument/objection against rules 4/5/6/7, especially 6. I myself had to force our newest member, (christianed by La) Lee, to post a thread announcing her arrival. People skulking in the background and popping up only for arguments is hardly tolerable, yes?
8 is only necessary and 9 is just awesomely right.
So thar.
|
|