|
Post by NRGburst on Feb 5, 2009 8:10:45 GMT
Honestly, I don't see the point of enforcing rule number 6. I've seen a lot of posts by people who made a newbie thread after jumping into discussions and creating threads of their own. While it's true that the posters that showed up spoiling for a fight didn't make a newbie thread, I don't see how forcing people to make one will make anybody less argumentative. They're two unrelated things, and as La has stated, those members were the exception. I can see how it would create a lot more lurkers than members, though. Why join a site to talk about fanfiction and Final Fantasy when you're not allowed to join in until you jump through hoops first?
|
|
Ink
SOLDIER First Class
Jashin's going to smite your arse. Smite! SMITE, I say!
Posts: 1,681
|
Post by Ink on Feb 5, 2009 12:21:48 GMT
I am pretty much standing here and shaking my fist at YAC, who stole all the things I was going to say. So yeah, I have to agree with you, YAC. And I have never had any real problems with the rules anyway. One thing I thought about though; is it possible to change how the swear filter is going to edit the bad words? Because I mean, when you talk about, for example, a pregnant dog you usually don't mean an actual dog. Is it possible to change it into something that makes more sense?
|
|
|
Post by YACCBS on Feb 5, 2009 12:41:16 GMT
I am pretty much standing here and shaking my fist at YAC, who stole all the things I was going to say. So yeah, I have to agree with you, YAC. Nyuk nyuk nyuk. To elaborate further on my stance on rule...newbie rule,whatever number that is - exactly what NRG said. (And yes, that's my grand elaboration. I completely agree with everything she said).
|
|
piratesrox
SOLDIER Third Class
The use of words expressing more than that of their literal intention! Now that. Is. Irony.
Posts: 712
|
Post by piratesrox on Feb 5, 2009 16:43:56 GMT
Also, a b*tch is not a pregnant dog.
It's a female dog.
Can we at least have swear filters that aren't silly, but witty alternatives?
|
|
|
Post by Woodster on Feb 5, 2009 17:12:50 GMT
Ok! This is better! I will kick your arses into gear, trust me! =P
Thanks for the suggestions made so far, they've been really helpful. From what I've read, we need to further discuss several points:
1. Defining what constitutes as "appropriate, polite and civil". It's all well and good telling me we need to properly define these terms, but unfortunately my psychic abilities are lacking a little as of late, and I would be grateful if you told us what you define them as.
Wood, using sarcasm? Never! XD
2. The swear filter. Like Tasha and Bianka, I personally don't have too much of a problem with bad language. A lot of it does come down to knowing when to use it. I try to avoid swearing in real life, and most of the time I tend to filter out anything that may or may not count as swearing purely out of politeness. But a lot of it comes down to personal views and upbringing. I know that if I used the words 'hell' or 'damn' at home, my youngest siblings would look at me as though I had committed murder, and yet in any other company its fine. I also agree that we need a swear filter mainly to cover our backs. And again the question is, what do we count as swearing?
3. The moderation procedure regarding the editing of posts. How do you want us to go about this? What time limit would be reasonable? I know there's been some suggestions already, but as this was a large part of the dissension, I feel that it really does need to be addressed.
4. Off-topic posting. Ok, in the six months I was a moderator, this is is how I went about defining and enforcing 'off-topicness'. It may not be ideal, but it worked for me.
If a conversation resulted in one, two or even three off topic posts, it was fine. Any more, then I would step in with a gentle nudging back on topic. If the signs showed that it was still off on a tangent, then I'd put my foot down. The problem here is that a lot of it is down to the mod's point of view. You can't truly define what constitutes as off-topic unless you're going to restrict what people are and are not allowed to talk about, and that is not what this forum is about. Obviously, in boards such as Final Fantasy VII and General Final Fantasy, we're going to be a lot stricter about it than we are in The Wine Cellar or even Tifa's Bar.
5. Compulsory posting for new members Both arguments have valid points, and I'm still in two minds about this. Is it worth forcing new members to post welcome threads, or is it better to allow them to settle in quietly?
6. Deleting unused accounts. Is it worth deleting accounts that haven't been used for some period of time? In some cases the answer is an obvious 'yes', but in others (such as Ronin or Unwinding Fantasy) I'm more likely to say no...
7. The Northern Crater Rules I will admit that I am in two minds about a moderation free board. I can see the benefits of having such a board, however I can also see it being abused. But I'm willing to attempt it, provided that we have a good set of ground rules, and that everyone understands the consequences. As I have already told the rest if the staff, I have absolutely no problem with closing the board down indefinitely if it were to be abused.
|
|
|
Post by Hope on Feb 5, 2009 17:39:07 GMT
I know I’m new, but I’m all for rebuilding the site in a way people are going to be happy with so I wanted to offer my opinions
I would define civil as it has always been defined on here, attacks on posts are okay, attacks on people are not. As I’ve said before I don’t see why we would ever need to attack people, generally we don’t know them and only have their posts to go on, so we should attack the posts, if anything. I may not be the best person to comment on this, though, because I liked things as they were before.
If it’s to cover your backs I don’t have a problem with you filtering whatever you think is necessary, even things that wouldn’t normally be considered swearing, because the tolerance level of incensed parents is likely to be somewhat different to ours!
If I was having my post altered, I’d be satisfied with a couple of hours as long as the pm that notified me contained the original post so that I could alter and repost if I wanted to. I can’t remember who suggested that in the moderation thread (YAC?) but it was a good idea.
I think your way of doing things is sensible because it allows for freedom of conversation but not wild tangents. I think the important thing is that we’re not modded for every single off topic comment, apart from in uber-serious threads like this one
I have to agree with Mystic here. I think making it compulsory might put some new members off. Making a newbie thread indicates some sort of commitment to posting here. Some people might just want to test the waters. Inviting people to introduce themselves is great, but I’m not sure about forcing them.
Is there any possibility of sending out emails letting people know we’re moving the site and could they let us know if they want to keep their accounts? Maybe with a time limit of a week or so? I’d be willing to send out the emails if you needed someone to do it.
I like the idea of the Northern Crater, but I don’t really have a comment to make about it because it seems like we’re going ahead with it and seeing how it goes, which sounds good to me.
|
|
|
Post by T. Costa on Feb 5, 2009 21:25:39 GMT
One thing I thought about though; is it possible to change how the swear filter is going to edit the bad words? Because I mean, when you talk about, for example, a pregnant dog you usually don't mean an actual dog. Is it possible to change it into something that makes more sense? To the best of my knowledge, it is NOT possible to change the swear filter around on proboards. However, on the forum software we're experimenting with, it is, and I had planned on making them more understandable. Edit: Woodster has just informed me that she checked and it IS possible to change the swear-filter on proboards. AMAZING. (Side-note: is "wh-re" really a swear word? That seems silly to me, since I come from a place where it's a perfectly legitimate profession. I'm in the minority, though, I know. I guess it depends in the context it's being used in.) I know I’m new, but I’m all for rebuilding the site in a way people are going to be happy with so I wanted to offer my opinions ... I would define civil as it has always been defined on here, attacks on posts are okay, attacks on people are not. As I’ve said before I don’t see why we would ever need to attack people, generally we don’t know them and only have their posts to go on, so we should attack the posts, if anything. I may not be the best person to comment on this, though, because I liked things as they were before. I would like to add in here that what I also find acceptable in debate is telling people when they're being unreasonable and unwilling to bend. It's not a slight on their character, but it IS something everyone can see plainly from the argument at hand. There is, however, a fairly tactful way in which to do this. If it’s to cover your backs I don’t have a problem with you filtering whatever you think is necessary, even things that wouldn’t normally be considered swearing, because the tolerance level of incensed parents is likely to be somewhat different to ours! Yes, but there is a limit to bending to unreasonable parents. Since these forums will be, once I've taken over the hosting, hosted in the United States, we'll probably MOSTLY go with what constitutes major swearing in the US, and a few from other countries as well. I understand a parent getting upset about overuse of the F-bomb; if they think "damn" is a swear word, I will not bend to them. There's a limit on that, as well. You know? Is there any possibility of sending out emails letting people know we’re moving the site and could they let us know if they want to keep their accounts? Maybe with a time limit of a week or so? I’d be willing to send out the emails if you needed someone to do it. Actually, I think this is a pretty reasonable way to solve the "deleted post" thing, too. We could give the person 24 hours to change their post (after the admins confer and decide on whether it's really an issue) and both PM and e-mail them. If they don't do it in that time frame, too bad. And the forums software allows us to e-mail members, so we wouldn't have to have someone do it for us, or keep track of members e-mails. If they signed up with a fake e-mail, it's their own damn fault for signing up to a message board with a fake e-mail. Obviously, if the admins decide that the post is sufficiently inflammatory (for instance, it contains a death threat or mention of illegal activities), we'll edit it right away, but for the most part I think 24 hours is a reasonable time frame, especially with proper notice. As far as inactive accounts, we probably won't delete them, I think, once we get to the new forums, but everyone who doesn't come here often will have to re-register. We'll probably, I think, put up a notice with a link to the new forums at the top of the news post. The inactive members thing doesn't glut up my forum software too badly; I just mostly want a fresh start. I like the idea of the Northern Crater, but I don’t really have a comment to make about it because it seems like we’re going ahead with it and seeing how it goes, which sounds good to me. I think that it will work with a few ground rules laid out, as I stated on Page One. On the whole we tend to have fairly mature members, and those that aren't mature do tend to grow up on their own. I'm glad that Woodster and Sai are willing to TRY it, rather than dismissing it out of hand, and if it doesn't work, then well....we get rid of it. Oh well, right?
|
|
|
Post by VulcanElf on Feb 5, 2009 21:59:15 GMT
Okay, so, I saw this thread a couple of days ago, but wasn't sure how to respond. Everyone now seems to think I'm some kind of trouble-making heinous female dog ( ) and that I'm all for mean-spirited anarchy, and I didn't want to stir a pot that has now simmered down. But if I'm being commanded to weigh in... My main problems with the rules all relate to the strictness of the moderation. I am in favor of the idea of allowing people a chance to edit their own posts when they are found to be unacceptable. But I think I'm nearly alone in my opinion of what should constitute a moderate-able post. I think as long as the post does not include offensive vulgarity or outright name-calling or threatening language or anything that might be considered illegal, it is not in need of moderation. Sure, it would be ideal if discussions (arguments) never got to that point, but as long as the post is relevant to the topic at hand -- and as long as it doesn't go as far as the criteria I already listed -- I don't see why we need a parent figure to step in and tell us what we can and can't say to each other. The other main problem is the strictness of moderation regarding off-topic posts. I've noticed that while some conversations do occasionally veer off onto a tangent once in a while, they do tend to come back on point in the natural course of things. I think it's silly to always be demanding that people stop talking to each other the way people naturally speak to each other -- tangentially. So anyway, there's my opinion. I have no problem with the swear filter -- although it *is* a little ridiculous, as the mother of a 12-year-old I can see its purpose. I say whatever mods decide to do as far as new members posting is cool. The real problem is not new people jumping straight into debates, it's established members being forced by the rules to handle disrespectful noobs with kid gloves.
|
|
|
Post by Pen Against Sword on Feb 5, 2009 22:13:40 GMT
I have to say I agree with VulcanElf very much on the points of off-topic posting and moderating posts in discussions. Like, a hundred percent.
On the topic of swear-filters - I agree with Pirates. At LEAST make them witty (and yeah, b*tch =/= pregnant dog). "Thingy" for "thingy"? How about "purple-helmeted warrior of love" or "one-eyed weasel"? At least it would be fairly freaking hilarious if someone tried to cuss excessively.
On "defining" what civility is - well. I don't really know how one does that. I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out, for example, something like, "Hey, I think your arguments are stupid and pointless." Or, "Your tone is infuriating, and you obviously only came here to argue with us, so why are you even here?" Honestly, what's wrong with that? Just, for example, notice that neither of those things are personally insulting. Yes, they are conversationally aggressive, but not insulting. I don't think snippiness or snarkiness should be moderated.
New members should not be made to post in the newbie board. I think that's ridiculous, and I think NRGBurst said it all very well - why make people jump through hoops? That won't make anyone feel welcome. If anything, it will make some members feel as if we are too strict as soon as they get on the board.
|
|
|
Post by Shagi Tigori on Feb 5, 2009 22:40:21 GMT
no real issues with the rules from Shagi but one word on the filters. When in the rp boards my suggestion would be that there is no(or less) filter because there are many words that may be considered swears and are filtered *uses her example of b*****d* that are also ordinary words for items such as swords or what have you depending on the context the word is used in. That's all I got to say ^^;
~About deleting accounts, as I found on some of the other forums I am on, if you don't tell at least a mod that you are going to be gone for a long time (meaning months) you will get deleted. I think it is worth it to use that idea.
|
|
|
Post by T. Costa on Feb 6, 2009 1:56:56 GMT
But I think I'm nearly alone in my opinion of what should constitute a moderate-able post. You really aren't. That's why this whole thing blew up in the first place, and why three admins left. Woodster, Sai and I *all* said as much in the "On Moderation" thread. What we want is tact when calling people on their BS. That's it. Saying "You're being unreasonable and I can see that debating with you is going to be pointless" is fine. Saying "You're being an unreasonable jackass and if you're like this in the real world you probably have no friends," is not, which I pointed out above (this is not a real-world or in-board example, just something I pulled out of the air). THAT is what we're trying to figure out - where the line between the two exists. We don't want friendliness, just tact and civility. THAT is the issue we had - you called someone on their crap and the mods modded without asking you your opinion. I think as long as the post does not include offensive vulgarity or outright name-calling or threatening language or anything that might be considered illegal, it is not in need of moderation. Sure, it would be ideal if discussions (arguments) never got to that point, but as long as the post is relevant to the topic at hand -- and as long as it doesn't go as far as the criteria I already listed -- I don't see why we need a parent figure to step in and tell us what we can and can't say to each other. For the most part, I agree with you, and I think within limits most people would as well. There's calling someone on their crap, and then there's being aggressive. One is appropriate, and one is not. The other main problem is the strictness of moderation regarding off-topic posts. I've noticed that while some conversations do occasionally veer off onto a tangent once in a while, they do tend to come back on point in the natural course of things. I think it's silly to always be demanding that people stop talking to each other the way people naturally speak to each other -- tangentially. While I agree with you, I do think Woodster gave a pretty good compromise up above. Let it go for a little bit, then try to nudge the conversation back in-topic, then if THAT fails, mod powers come into play. Obviously, warning people for every instance of off-topicness is a little harsh; were that the case, I'd have a HUGE warning bar, and I don't. It's when it gets excessive, I think, that that rule needs to come into play. On the topic of swear-filters - I agree with Pirates. At LEAST make them witty (and yeah, b*tch =/= pregnant dog). "Thingy" for "thingy"? How about "purple-helmeted warrior of love" or "one-eyed weasel"? At least it would be fairly freaking hilarious if someone tried to cuss excessively. On an IRC that I mod at, we substitute it with "throbbing python of LURRRRVE!" *snerk* And the C-word is substituted with "A VERY MEAN LADY!" But yeah, we're trying to formulate a list of things that need to go into the swear-filter and what their substitutions are, and if anyone wants to contribute they can PM me with the swears in question and their substitutions. On "defining" what civility is - well. I don't really know how one does that. I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out, for example, something like, "Hey, I think your arguments are stupid and pointless." Or, "Your tone is infuriating, and you obviously only came here to argue with us, so why are you even here?" Honestly, what's wrong with that? Just, for example, notice that neither of those things are personally insulting. Yes, they are conversationally aggressive, but not insulting. I don't think snippiness or snarkiness should be moderated. I agree with you for the most part - people should be allowed to dislike each other. It's when it gets to ruining the mood of the board because of those people's dislike that I, personally, will step in and say "Come on, guys, act your friggin' age." Hopefully the North Crater will help allay this to an extent - people can be as snarky as they want there and hopefully that'll vent it. no real issues with the rules from Shagi but one word on the filters. When in the rp boards my suggestion would be that there is no(or less) filter because there are many words that may be considered swears and are filtered *uses her example of b*****d* that are also ordinary words for items such as swords or what have you depending on the context the word is used in. That's all I got to say ^^; You are welcome to PM me (since I have no problems with swearing and am going to be compiling the list for admin approval) with your suggestions as to what swear words are worthy and unworthy of being censored out. Personally, I have no problem with any REAL word that is sometimes used as a swear, but the admins and execs will be voting on this, to the best of my knowledge. I'd LOVE to make only the most insulting amongst them - the F-bomb, the C-word (Although I, personally, have no problems with this word and don't understand why people get their panties in a twist about it) - the ones that are on the swear-list, but I don't get the final say in it all. Once again, I ask anyone who has a problem with the swear list and wants specific words excluded or included to please PM me with your suggestions. At the very least I would like to start compiling a list and possible substitutions that shouldn't screw with people's posts to much (or at least will render them hilarious). I also want to thank everyone for taking note of this thread and making contributions. Obviously, not everyone is going to be pleased with the decisions we make, but we ARE listening, and we ARE willing to compromise - which is what this is all about. Compromise. That's what we were so upset about with the former administration, right? That they were unwilling to compromise?
|
|
|
Post by Bianka on Feb 6, 2009 4:28:59 GMT
Oh, wow. Lots of replies now. Hooray! @lynn: <3 So sweet. @la: you know...I'm not sure any of us think these new rules will be set in stone forever and ever. It may just be a good idea to open this up in the future to discuss what has worked and what has not. It's likely we'll notice these things beforehand and make changes as deemed necessary, but it's always nice to open choices up to the public. =) @sixth and many others: When it comes to off-topic posting, I imagine we'll be fairly lenient in the more popular areas like the Wine Cellar, Tifa's Bar, and even Marlene's Drawing Box. I don't think off-topic posting is so bad, so long as it doesn't derail for too long. The one-liners get me, though. >_< @nrg: I have mixed feelings about forcing newbies to post their own introduction thread... I really would prefer that they would introduce themselves first. I mean, imagine a perfect stranger intruding into one of your conversations. You may not really mind that they do, but it'd be nice to know who they are. BUT! You still have a very valid point. How welcoming is it to join a forum wherein rules are immediately restricting you? Back in the day and occasionally still, I PM(ed) new members to welcome them to the board. I nudge(d) them to post in the forums, starting with the Newbie's Board. Maybe we can leave it to that--just a strong suggestion to introduce themselves first? Ink and others, too: I do agree with the idea of making the swear filters hilarious. ;D @hope: Even though you're new, your opinion is still very much valued. After all, you're going to stick around, aren't you? Please say yes. @vulcan: Like Tasha said, you're not as alone as you may think. While I didn't have a problem with the previous moderation, I do think we'll ease down on modding a bit in comparison. I don't believe in attacking the person instead of the argument, personally. Taking the high road, leaving that person to look like a jerk all by himself, etc. But my personal opinions don't trump the desires of others. As long as things are conveyed in a civil manner, (sans the personal insults, threats, and other such you've mentioned) things should be alright. And I, for one, will step in and--very civilly, hoho--warn whoever behaves like an argument-monger in the future. I imagine that many other members will do the same as a result of The Shipping Wars thread. That was a learning experience for everyone, I think. La, rick-roll the place next time... Kidding!Now, as for deleting unused accounts...I'm leaning towards a no on that one, for the same reasons as Wood mentioned. Some members come and go with no plans to return, and those should be cleaned out. But how can we tell the difference between those members and the ones who've simply lost the link to the forum? I've been IMed before asking for a link to the GA from an old member who wanted to return but couldn't remember how to get here. (Google, anyone? ) And others still may lose their connection for a long period of time, so how will they receive notice of their account potentially being deleted? Hmm... =/
|
|
|
Post by unwinding fantasy on Feb 6, 2009 15:27:40 GMT
6. Deleting unused accounts.Is it worth deleting accounts that haven't been used for some period of time? In some cases the answer is an obvious 'yes', but in others (such as Ronin or Unwinding Fantasy) I'm more likely to say no... Yes, please don't delete me. I'm slack but I do love this place. If anything, if the boards are getting incredibly cluttered, you could always just delete people with only a handful of posts, maybe email them before it happens. Considering the "appropriate" portion... I'd like to step up here and admit I have a dirty sense of humour. This was a problem at another proboards forum I frequent (and no, not only my smut! Many members were just as bad,) so we implemented a tag to hide all naughty talk. Of course, it can also be used to hide actual spoilers whether it be during discussions on games, books, movies etc. It's a nifty little tag. Staff, maybe you could consider its usefulness...? Or I could just learn to shut up but you know. XDDD
About introducing: most definitely I'm against forcing members to post in the newbies' board. It seems like a needless show of mod powers. Most people will naturally go and introduce themselves if they're serious about interacting with other forum members anyway.
|
|
Ink
SOLDIER First Class
Jashin's going to smite your arse. Smite! SMITE, I say!
Posts: 1,681
|
Post by Ink on Feb 6, 2009 18:04:59 GMT
I think it is . Calling someone a "wh-re" is usually meant as an insult, but if you do mean the actual profession, "prostitute" works just as well.
|
|
Clan Dragoon
SOLDIER Third Class
"Well, since Aerith died, she unofficially got bumped up to 'main heroine' status"
Posts: 639
|
Post by Clan Dragoon on Feb 6, 2009 20:54:18 GMT
Personally speaking, I don't think it's the rules that were really an issue - I understand the point in clarifying them, and the advantage cleaning them up into specifics would bring. But if we're going about changing the rules because of the recent mod drop, I don't think that was the problem at all. I think it was simply the relationship the mods and members had developed. (There's a point to all of this, so just wait it out till the end) That being said, I sense a new energy on the board and a new respect for the current mods and admins. Which I could be wrong, there could be a secret hate Wood cult brewing beneath the surface of the board- and just because I'm heading it means nothingBut I believe it's very opposite. I can't see any of the past problems reoccurring because the circumstances that presented them are now eliminated. I feel an elite (in a sense) member tally has developed - where people have a feel of the talkative and direct members we have. And some level of respect for everyone. If anything did happen to step out of line where someone got slapped upside the head with an insult, I could imagine that those members could clear everything up in a professional manner. It was said that (for the most part) we have a very mature audience, and in the end, majority of us get along. And we get along because the mods and admins we have now are very active in not just modding, but participating on a casual level - or at least, from my experience, there seems a less distance of formality between them and us. If some knuckle head pushed the envelope, and a mod stepped in - I have cause to think that majority of the site wouldn't react in a negative fashion and call for censorship. The fact that the current administration is taking so much time and thought into these new rules proves that that's exactly the type of feelings and reactions they're trying to avoid. I don't know, I guess in the whole ramble of this - I was just trying to find a point yet examined in the thread (everyone hates a parrot), and I feel the forum is more of a close knit community these days then past. History can't repeat in an environment like that. But everyone (mostly) brings up valid points and circumstance. I just think that the rules should be less about specifics and more about respect and fairness. If someone did come along that really wanted to troll along the line of rules, I'm sure the community wouldn't think too highly and the problem would work out the old fashion way. But yeah, my two cents on the rule situation - you're all doing great! GO TEAM! GO! Oh - and the pit should have a mod. Pirates.
|
|