So how do we go about doing this?

[FaKToR]

if you do not like a rule make an intelligent post in the talk to the mods area.

I was directed to post here and make reasoned points which I've shown I'm more than capable of doing in the past. So what do you say we change some of these new rules eh? I always enjoy being involved in the process, though I think clarifying how exactly I do that would be handy. I move that we work to expedite loosening the rules against swearing, tasteless sexual topics, and sexy images.

I'd like to make cleaning up this nastiness as quick and painless as possible.

[Prowl]

how about no?

[StandingCow]

I was directed to post here and make reasoned points which I've shown I'm more than capable of doing in the past. So what do you say we change some of these new rules eh? I always enjoy being involved in the process, though I think clarifying how exactly I do that would be handy. I move that we work to expedite loosening the rules against swearing, tasteless sexual topics, and sexy images.

I'd like to make cleaning up this nastiness as quick and painless as possible.

Hmm, I am really waiting for scav to comment before I say something about this idea.

[Steadman]

I was directed to post here and make reasoned points which I've shown I'm more than capable of doing in the past. So what do you say we change some of these new rules eh? I always enjoy being involved in the process, though I think clarifying how exactly I do that would be handy. I move that we work to expedite loosening the rules against swearing, tasteless sexual topics, and sexy images.

I'd like to make cleaning up this nastiness as quick and painless as possible.

I'm not a mod, but this isn't a reason why the mods should fix all the things you've told us you want changed.

[Modest Genius]

for once, I agree with faktor

[Prowl]

The rule is against any swearing in thread titles and first posts, and any EXCESSIVE swearing from there on.

Why does anyone feel the need to defend their perceived right to excessively swear I don't know. It's excessive and excessive is never a good thing.

[MeanPatrick]

It's excessive and excessive is never a good thing.

What about excessive sex? Or did they nab more than the tip during the operation? :)

[Steadman]

What about excessive sex? Or did they nab more than the tip during the operation? :)

Racism ban

[Prowl]

excessive sex leaves you feeling sore and bruised, this prevents more sex in the short term future, which follows the rule of it being a bad thing.

It's kinda tied into the definition of the word....

[Discobird]

The rule is against any swearing in thread titles and first posts, and any EXCESSIVE swearing from there on.

Why does anyone feel the need to defend their perceived right to excessively swear I don't know. It's excessive and excessive is never a good thing.

The problem is that different people have different ideas of what "excessive" means. That's what people are arguing about. Barring examples like "fuckity fuck fuck fuckshit" it's not clear where the mods draw the line and whether this line is a good one. The rules say to be "discrete and be sensible" but that's just another way of saying "Don't be excessive."

[StandingCow]

The problem is that different people have different ideas of what "excessive" means. That's what people are arguing about. Barring examples like "fuckity fuck fuck fuckshit" it's not clear where the mods draw the line and whether this line is a good one. The rules say to be "discrete and be sensible" but that's just another way of saying "Don't be excessive."

I don't think anybody has gotten a warning for it... just edits or whatever.

[Discobird]

I don't think anybody has gotten a warning for it... just edits or whatever.

That doesn't really answer the problem I raised-- we want to know what level of profanity will get edited, so we have a clear idea of the rule. Only then is it possible to discuss whether the rule is good or ought to be modified like Faktor wants.

[StandingCow]

That doesn't really answer the problem I raised-- we want to know what level of profanity will get edited, so we have a clear idea of the rule. Only then is it possible to discuss whether the rule is good or ought to be modified like Faktor wants.

Sorry, I just hate having to spell things out that are obvious.. but ok..

"Fuck you you fucking shitty asshole." Would not be allowed.

"I don't fucking care what she is wearing" Would be fine.

[Discobird]

Sorry, I just hate having to spell things out that are obvious.. but ok..

"Fuck you you fucking shitty asshole." Would not be allowed.

"I don't fucking care what she is wearing" Would be fine.

It's exactly the non-obvious usages I'm asking about. For example, give me a sample that doesn't also break rule 3.

e.g.
"I can't fucking believe this shit?"
If that's allowed, what about "I can't fucking believe this fucking shit!" Or "Damn, I can't fucking believe this shit!" See where I'm going with this?

"Fuck, I hate this fucking weather"
"Fuck, I fucking hate this fucking weather"
"FUCK, I FUCKING hate this fucking weather"
"Fuck, I hate this shitty weather"
"Shit, I hate this fucking weather"
"I hate this shitty fucking weather"
"I fucking hate this shitty fucking weather"
"FUUUUUUUUUUCK!"
...

You might say it's hard to draw a solid line between what's acceptable and unacceptable. OK; we tolerate a little fuzziness in all of our rules. My worry is that it's especially hard to do for swearing since it's so strongly a matter of taste and etiquette. And any particular standard of taste needs to be justified IMO. Otherwise this rule looks as arbitrary to some of us as this diagram:

http://oregonstate.edu/groups/bap/MeetTheFirms/dinner%20setting.jpg

:D

[FaKToR]

The fucking coffee shitting cup doesn't befuckinglong

[StandingCow]

Disco, if we think its excessive, we will take care of it.

[Wallrod]

I'll just intervene here because both sides aren't getting the other's point: Users want a clear definition of 'excessive' so that they don't overstep the line/know what they can bitch at because they don't like it, and mods/admins want the users to trust our judgement and to use a little common sense of their own.

Some important points: Unless you're breaking rules for the sake of breaking them or show a plain, intentional disregard for them, it's extremely likely that you'll get nothing more than an edit and/or notification that that amount of swearing isn't acceptable, which is pretty much zero skin off your back. It's not like we keep a tally of every encounter each user has with THE ADMINISTRATION so we can oppress you more effectively and consistently and ban you once you've had your posts edited more than three times.

[maggie]

Chances are that the worst that will happen in any case is that all your "fuck"s will be replaced with "kitten"s.

[StandingCow]

Chances are that the worst that will happen in any case is that all your "fuck"s will be replaced with "kitten"s.

What about fucking kittens? :o :p

[maggie]

Bestiality bant.

[Prowl]

Basically its kinda like speeding is enforced over here.

the speed limit may be 30mph, but you will never get pulled over for doing 31, often you'll get away with 37, however if you get pulled over at anything over 33 then you can't contest, and even at 31 you just have to suck it up and beg forgiveness.

So basically, don't push too hard, you certainly won't be banned without plenty of warnings and kittens, UNLESS it's bloody obvious that you were doing it delibrately.

[StandingCow]

Basically its kinda like speeding is enforced over here.

the speed limit may be 30mph, but you will never get pulled over for doing 31, often you'll get away with 37, however if you get pulled over at anything over 33 then you can't contest, and even at 31 you just have to suck it up and beg forgiveness.

So basically, don't push too hard, you certainly won't be banned without plenty of warnings and kittens, UNLESS it's bloody obvious that you were doing it delibrately.

I like that analogy. Very good prowl. :D

[Modest Genius]

It's not like we keep a tally of every encounter each user has with THE ADMINISTRATION so we can oppress you more effectively and consistently and ban you once you've had your posts edited more than three times.why don't I believe you? :D

[FaKToR]

You still haven't explained to me how I go about changing these rules.

[Prowl]

below is a 3 step process to enable you to get to a position whereby you may change the rules.

1. become alex jordan
2. pay all our hosting fees forever
3. earn a place on the administration/moderation team*

*this involves breaking several state laws and bestiality.

[FaKToR]

So, standingcow lied to me?

[Prowl]

Originally Posted by StandingCow
if you do not like a rule make an intelligent post in the talk to the mods area.

re-read your original quote?

I think our lawyers would be happy with the non-commital wording of that....

[FaKToR]

re-read your original quote?

I think our lawyers would be happy with the non-commital wording of that....

You could have just said "no" and I could have kept doing what I was doing.

[Steadman]

I was under the impression that I shouldn't listen to a thing Prowl says.

Good thing he didn't disappoint me!

[Steadman]

And with excellent style and finesse, the universe balances out and all is well

[Discobird]

Disco, if we think its excessive, we will take care of it.

Well, yeah, I assumed you would. The question is what standards you use for "excessive."

I'll just intervene here because both sides aren't getting the other's point: Users want a clear definition of 'excessive' so that they don't overstep the line/know what they can bitch at because they don't like it, and mods/admins want the users to trust our judgement and to use a little common sense of their own.

Good observation, and I want to add a couple points:

1) We users have another reason to want a clarification of "excessive": it would demonstrate that the mods themselves have a clear idea of what they mean, and it would hold them to those standards. If the mods don't have a clear idea of how they will apply the rule, then there's no guarantee they'll apply it consistently and fairly in the future. But if they do have a clear idea of the rule, why not share it with the community? It would make the moderators' jobs easier since the users would actually know what to avoid doing. Why the stonewall approach?

2) The two sides' aims aren't mutually incompatible (not that you said they were; I'm just clarifying). Knowing how the mods are judging, and knowing that they're judging clearly and consistently, will increase our trust in their judgment and make us more likely to defer to them in the future.

Unless you're breaking rules for the sake of breaking them or show a plain, intentional disregard for them...
How could we flaunt a rule if we don't know what it means?

So basically, don't push too hard...
The question is how hard is "too hard," and in this particular case I don't think "use common sense" is a good answer because it's not a matter of common sense, it's a matter of taste, and you can expect people to hold widely different opinions on what's excessive or what's not.

[Discobird]

Chances are that the worst that will happen in any case is that all your "fuck"s will be replaced with "kitten"s.

F:cat:cking ridiculous!

But seriously, why not save yourselves the effort of doing even this much and clarify the rule a bit more?

[maggie]

If I wouldn't say it in front of my mom, I replace it with kittens.
My mom's a pretty tough bird, so that's a reasonable standard.

Happy now?

[Discobird]

If I wouldn't say it in front of my mom, I replace it with kittens.
My mom's a pretty tough bird, so that's a reasonable standard.

Happy now?

That's better than what's written in the rules, thank you. :) But does every mod use the same standard?

[maggie]

Yeah, they all know my mom. :p

I think we're all using the same basic standard that if it wouldn't be okay to say in front of civilized adults whose opinion you at least care about a little bit, it's probably not okay here. That leaves plenty of room to spatter your posts with a bit of cussing for emphasis, which is all most of us here do anyway.

[Steadman]

So, uh, when was the last time you kittened yourself while watching Jon kitten a kitten?

[StandingCow]

So, uh, when was the last time you kittened yourself while watching Jon kitten a kitten?

There was an incident involving a stuffed kitten and a stuffed panda's bum... its a touchy subject. :)

[Modest Genius]

I think we're all using the same basic standard that if it wouldn't be okay to say in front of civilized adults whose opinion you at least care about a little bit, it's probably not okay here. That leaves plenty of room to spatter your posts with a bit of cussing for emphasis, which is all most of us here do anyway.which civilised adults? I think nothing of swearing around my workmates, do so mildly in front of my parents but not at all around my grandparents. so which is it?

[FaKToR]

which civilised adults? I think nothing of swearing around my workmates, do so mildly in front of my parents but not at all around my grandparents. so which is it?

Obscenity is an essential part of the adult world. How else would anger and frustration be vented in the work place if not for cussing? One thing I quickly realized upon entering the workforce was that everybody swears.

[maggie]

So what you're telling us is that you want us to tell you precisely what percentage of your words may be swearing?
Very well. You may swear in 2% of your words. Unused percentages expire at the end of each post, and may not be saved up to be used in subsequent posts. All other words used to support said swear words must form coherent, grammatically correct sentences and must follow all other rules. If you require a list of swear words, I'll have to make a 5000 word post in order to stay within the allowed percentage.

Is this really what you people need?
Most of you are just being purposely obtuse, and it's really starting to make us feel as though we're on trial, when in fact we're just trying to do our job as best we can. Come on guys, you're all quite intelligent enough to a) see what sort of posts are consistently NOT getting edited and b) draw reasonable conclusions based upon that data.

[MeanPatrick]

So what you're telling us is that you want us to tell you precisely what percentage of your words may be swearing?
Very well. You may swear in 2% of your words. Unused percentages expire at the end of each post, and may not be saved up to be used in subsequent posts. All other words used to support said swear words must form coherent, grammatically correct sentences and must follow all other rules. If you require a list of swear words, I'll have to make a 5000 word post in order to stay within the allowed percentage.

Is this really what you people need?
Most of you are just being purposely obtuse, and it's really starting to make us feel as though we're on trial, when in fact we're just trying to do our job as best we can. Come on guys, you're all quite intelligent enough to a) see what sort of posts are consistently NOT getting edited and b) draw reasonable conclusions based upon that data.

"I didn't get a harumph from that guy!"

"He's new."

"Better watch you ass!"

[LSky]

I'd like to see a reply on Discobirds post.
http://forums.worldatwarmod.com/showpost.php?p=553027&postcount=32

[Prowl]

I'd like to see a reply on Discobirds post.
http://forums.worldatwarmod.com/showpost.php?p=553027&postcount=32

as has been made clear (at least to some of us) it is impossible without being silly to quantify excessive.

We could say don't say anything in a post that you wouldn't say to your parents/grandparents/teacher/police office/minor deity but even then there's room for debate.

If we come out with a figure then we would be expected to count up swear words in every post.

Just make sure that you are not the most foul mouthed person in the thread and you'll probably not hear from us.

[Discobird]

as has been made clear (at least to some of us) it is impossible without being silly to quantify excessive.
We don't want quantification per se, but qualification. There is a medium between leaving the word undefined and giving an unrealistically precise algorithm for determining "excessive," which no one wants anyway.


We could say don't say anything in a post that you wouldn't say to your parents/grandparents/teacher/police office/minor deity but even then there's room for debate.

But there may be less room for debate than before, and perhaps even no (or little) room for reasonable debate if you give a good definition.

e.g. "Don't say anything you wouldn't say to a judge in a courtroom" is a pretty satisfactory elaboration. Yes it isn't perfectly precise (male or female, old or young, liberal or conservative, may conceivably have some bearing on how one should behave in front of this judge), but people have a conception of a run-of-the-mill judge that gives a significantly better idea of what "excessive" means than the word by itself.

maggie's first explanation (it's not really a definition) doesn't work because we don't all know the relationship she has with her mom. The second one, referring to "civilized adults," has the problems that MG and Fak have pointed out. But I think it's close to an acceptably precise definition. Something like "Don't say something that the average reasonable adult wouldn't say to another average adult he just met at a school or grocery store or [someplace informal]" might work.

Then the question is whether that's a good standard or not.


If we come out with a figure then we would be expected to count up swear words in every post.

Nobody wants a hard numerical figure, we just want something signicantly more precise than what's been given.


Just make sure that you are not the most foul mouthed person in the thread and you'll probably not hear from us.
If I swear once in a thread where no one else has sworn, should I expect to hear from you?

Lest I sound like I'm just arguing for argument's sake-- my last point was meant to question whether "excessive" is defined relative to the rest of the thread in which the post appears. If so, that's not a good definition (unless there is some particular feature of that particular thread which discourages swearing, e.g. it's a welcome thread for 8-year olds or something. But that wouldn't be a general rule).

[Discobird]

Is this really what you people need?
Most of you are just being purposely obtuse, and it's really starting to make us feel as though we're on trial, when in fact we're just trying to do our job as best we can.

I don't doubt that maggie, however there is a real problem here that several of us feel hasn't been adequately addressed.


Come on guys, you're all quite intelligent enough to a) see what sort of posts are consistently NOT getting edited and b) draw reasonable conclusions based upon that data.

This is not a replacement for a clearer rule, for several reasons.

First, it doesn't work for new members.

Second, it doesn't address the worry that the mods themselves may be confused or inconsistent in applying the rule (garbage in, garbage out-- how are we supposedly to learn an inconsistently applied rule?).

Third, it leaves you guys vulnerable to charges of unfairness. You have limited time and numbers; you can't see every single post on the forums. If we're supposed to learn the rule by what doesn't get edited, then someone whose post was edited might say "WTF, so-and-so said the same thing last week and you didn't do anything." And he'd be right.

Fourth, you'll have to give a clearer definition of "excessive" anyway as soon as someone challenges a particular edit. Suppose someone posts a thread here saying "I disagree with your editing my post; I felt I didn't swear excessively." Then you can't just point to past cases of editing (or non-editing), since he might also think some of those are not excessive-- he's challenging the rule directly. So the problem of interpretation arises anyway.

I don't know why the mods have been so reluctant to clarify what they mean by "excessive." It's not hard to do if you already have a clear idea between yourselves. So it seems to me that, either you don't really know what you're all talking about, or you want to preserve a lot of freedom for yourselves to interpret the rule arbitrarily (since "excessive" can mean almost anything).

[maggie]

We are unable to give a better answer because the answer is that it's 89% context-driven.

[Discobird]

Thanks for that answer maggie, I haven't seen that answer stated before.

1) In what way does context matter? In which contexts would you tolerate more swearing than others?

2) Does intent matter too? If so, are these cases in which intent matters unique, or are they already covered by another rule (like the "don't be a jerk" one)?

3) Can you please add this to the official rules thread?

Thanks :)

[StandingCow]

I am so absolutly fed up with this.

It is not that hard, just post like normal, if something is out of line we will take care of it.

Jesus.

[Somedude]

I am so absolutly fed up with this.

It is not that hard, just post like normal, if something is out of line we will take care of it.

Jesus.

Heh, I was going to say it more like this:

HULK SMASH!!! WRAAA!!!

[StandingCow]

Heh, I was going to say it more like this:

HULK SMASH!!! WRAAA!!!

hehe, I am just sick of people picking apart the rules because they have nothing better to do, or some just to piss us off.

Very few people have been banned or warned for major things, just go on doing what you are doing and use your brain is what I think when I see some of these comments.

[Noirceur]

Disco isn't one to argue without purpose, he's a cool dude:lincoln:

[Discobird]

Disco isn't one to argue without purpose, he's a cool dude:lincoln:

Thanks Noirceur :)

You all might not believe this, but I'm not arguing for argument's sake or trying to be annoying. I'm arguing because the rule as stated could mean almost anything (and probably does mean very different things to different people). I'm worried that it'll be applied inconsistently, and I'm worried that the mods won't have a good response to people who complain they weren't breaking the rule. I'll stop when I see a clear explanation of the rule, which anyone can see hasn't been given yet after more than 50 posts. But I think maggie's last response is a step in the right direction.

Very few people have been banned or warned for major things, just go on doing what you are doing and use your brain is what I think when I see some of these comments.
I'll do that too, but it doesn't replace having a clear rule for the reasons I gave in post #48

[FaKToR]

I'm worried that it'll be applied inconsistently, and I'm worried that the mods won't have a good response to people who complain they weren't breaking the rule.

Or the rule changes just suck and are unnecessary.

[StandingCow]

Thanks Noirceur :)

You all might not believe this, but I'm not arguing for argument's sake or trying to be annoying. I'm arguing because the rule as stated could mean almost anything (and probably does mean very different things to different people). I'm worried that it'll be applied inconsistently, and I'm worried that the mods won't have a good response to people who complain they weren't breaking the rule. I'll stop when I see a clear explanation of the rule, which anyone can see hasn't been given yet after more than 50 posts. But I think maggie's last response is a step in the right direction.


I'll do that too, but it doesn't replace having a clear rule for the reasons I gave in post #48

What I don't understand is, if it isn't a problem, why the worry? Right now the only problem has been the arguing over all the possible ways the rules could be interpreted. The Interpretation is our job, not yours, if you guys do something wrong, we will correct it and let you know. Infractions are not a big deal.

If people complain that they were not breaking the rules, we will take a look at it. But, if we feel it is still against the rules, our interpretation is what carries the most weight. You might say, "but he got an infraction, and he didn't know it was wrong!!", Well, now he knows it IS wrong, and he only got an infraction. Again, not a big deal, he now knows it is wrong.

See: a. Rules interpretations by the forum staff take precedence, and the interpretations of the administrators are gospel.

Infractions are not necessarily bad things, we give infractions for sig rule violations, etc, they are just a way of us letting you know that you did something wrong and would appreciate it if you stopped, and the reason it isn't sent in a PM is so that we have a record of it.

Or the rule changes just suck and are unnecessary.

That is not your decision to make.

Disco isn't one to argue without purpose, he's a cool dude:lincoln:

Yes, he is a cool dude, and I respect his position. I was not talking about him.

Personally, I feel that faktor, CC, Steadman are just a few of the ones that argue just to argue the rules. But, that is my opinion.

[Somedude]

You all might not believe this, but I'm not arguing for argument's sake or trying to be annoying. I'm arguing because the rule as stated could mean almost anything (and probably does mean very different things to different people). I'm worried that it'll be applied inconsistently, and I'm worried that the mods won't have a good response to people who complain they weren't breaking the rule. I'll stop when I see a clear explanation of the rule, which anyone can see hasn't been given yet after more than 50 posts. But I think maggie's last response is a step in the right direction.

The reason for vagueness in the rules is to allow us flexibility in enforcement. Think of it as a code of conduct rather than law.

The reason things like "excessive swearing" aren't defined is because there's no way to define it without painting yourself into a corner. We could say don't use words that you wouldn't say around your grandmother, but maybe your grandmother swears like a sailor. We could state some arbitrary word count, but then we'd be bound to enforce it, and NOBODY wants that. If you have a concise, universal way that we can frame it while still providing a little bit of wiggle room, I'd like to hear it. :)

As an aside, and not directed so much at you as just a general statement... I really don't mind answering questions or letting people understand the thought process, but like Cow and many others, I'm getting tired of feeling obliged to justify myself and required to defend myself and my fellow mods. I'm getting tired of us being made out to be the bad guys.

[FaKToR]

That is not your decision to make.
It was you who gave me the illusion what I said mattered.

Personally, I feel that faktor, CC, Steadman are just a few of the ones that argue just to argue the rules. But, that is my opinion.
The fuck I do. You know damn well I don't like these new rules.

[Noirceur]

Thanks Noirceur :)
No problem, I can't have you advancing on my territory anyway.

[maggie]

Thanks for that answer maggie, I haven't seen that answer stated before.

1) In what way does context matter? In which contexts would you tolerate more swearing than others?

2) Does intent matter too? If so, are these cases in which intent matters unique, or are they already covered by another rule (like the "don't be a jerk" one)?

3) Can you please add this to the official rules thread?

Thanks :)

Well, context matters in the way that you'd expect it to; if your post consists of nothing but nonsense, gibberish, and cursing, then yes, it will definitely be considered a violation and likely be deleted, with an infraction given. If you've written a coherent post and it contains a couple of curses that are used for dramatic emphasis, it won't be considered a violation (assuming of course it's not the first post in a thread - but that's a separate issue). If a post straddles the line between these two - say it's a coherent post but you've added a string of swear words at the end, or you've added enough swearing in there that it's gone beyond dramatic emphasis and begun to make the post nigh-unreadable, then chances are that the post will be edited, but you may not receive any infraction.

Intent matters as well, but usually in these cases the post also violates another rule (most likely the one about insulting other members). We may also edit posts where the intent is clearly to piss off the mods :)

I'll ask Scav if we can work in a note explaining this.

[Modest Genius]

I don't know why the mods have been so reluctant to clarify what they mean by "excessive." It's not hard to do if you already have a clear idea between yourselves. So it seems to me that, either you don't really know what you're all talking about, or you want to preserve a lot of freedom for yourselves to interpret the rule arbitrarily (since "excessive" can mean almost anything).oh, I'm fairly confident they haven't agreed this one properly between themselves

Further to discorbids criticisms of the 'you can see what gets edited, work it out' approach is that once it has been edited, we don't know what it said originally

If the mods feel unable to sufficiently define the rule, they should get rid of it entirely, especially given how unpopular it has been. If a rule cannot be fairly enforced, it shouldn't be a rule at all. And if you're fed up of having to justify yourselves, get your justification in first by means of a coherent, informative and sufficient rules announcement.

That is not your decision to make.looks to me like he was stating his opinion, not instructing you to change things. and his own opinion is his to make.

(assuming of course it's not the first post in a thread - but that's a separate issue)no, it's not. they're both facets of the same rule - in fact you could make the argument that this is an example of just the context you are currently invoking. Furthermore, it's an example of inconsistency already existing in the current rules, in addition to the inconsistency between moderators

[StandingCow]

looks to me like he was stating his opinion, not instructing you to change things. and his own opinion is his to make.


"Or the rule changes just suck and are unnecessary."

While it may be his opinion, him saying they are unnecessary is not his call, he can think it all he wants, but the people that make the rules disagree.

[LSky]

We could say don't say anything in a post that you wouldn't say to your parents/grandparents/teacher/police office/minor deity but even then there's room for debate.I thought this was a forum where people from around my age are to be found. Is it weird to talk to these people as I would talk to them in real life? Why set this as a sort of standard/guideline?

[StandingCow]

I thought this was a forum where people from around my age are to be found. Is it weird to talk to these people as I would talk to them in real life? Why set this as a sort of standard/guideline?

He said "we could say" we would never set this as a guideline because.. it leaves too much open.

I curse in front of my grandmother and she does it also.. well she wont say "fuck" but she says "shit". :)

[LSky]

He said "we could say" we would never set this as a guideline because.. it leaves too much open.Oh well that was a misinterpretation on my part then, thanks for clearing that up.

[StandingCow]

Oh well that was a misinterpretation on my part then, thanks for clearing that up.

No problem :)

[Somedude]

I curse in front of my grandmother and she does it also.. well she wont say "fuck" but she says "shit". :)

My grandma swears like crazy, and has a twisted sense of humor rivaling the OTF. :D

[MeanPatrick]

My grandma swears like crazy, and has a twisted sense of humor rivaling the OTF. :D

http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/7722/20061127jl4.jpg

[Modest Genius]

"Or the rule changes just suck and are unnecessary."

While it may be his opinion, him saying they are unnecessary is not his call, he can think it all he wants, but the people that make the rules disagree.uh, so people are allowed to have opinions, but not share them with the rest of us? interesting new interpretation that...

I thought this was a forum where people from around my age are to be found. Is it weird to talk to these people as I would talk to them in real life? Why set this as a sort of standard/guideline?that's a good point. why can't I say something to, say, crosshair, that I would consider appropriate to say to an adolescent half-crazy canadian? why is the standard that of some set of people (grandmothers, judges) who are wholly unrepresented on these forums?

[StandingCow]

uh, so people are allowed to have opinions, but not share them with the rest of us? interesting new interpretation that...


Let me restate it since you seem to be having trouble understanding.

What we feel is necessary is what takes precedence.

[Modest Genius]

so? that doesn't mean he can't state his opinion

btw, I had no difficulty understanding your point, you just appear to misunderstanding his

[StandingCow]

so? that doesn't mean he can't state his opinion

Did I ever say that? did I ever say the words, "your opinion is unwelcome"?

No.

[LSky]

He said "we could say" we would never set this as a guideline because.. it leaves too much open.Again though, since you ignored the only relevant part of Modest Genius' post.
that's a good point. why can't I say something to, say, crosshair, that I would consider appropriate to say to an adolescent half-crazy canadian? why is the standard that of some set of people (grandmothers, judges) who are wholly unrepresented on these forums?Is this actually the close to the standard? Or would you consider trying to formulate a such standard? I believe that's what a lot of people would appreciate.

[StandingCow]

Naa, the grandmother thing is not the standard. There is no right way to explain the rule, excessive means different things to different people.

Just go on posting like you guys do, if we see something excessive, we will fix it, if the same person keeps doing it we will let them know. There really is nothing to worry about.

[LSky]

Very well then.

Though if you're saying things like this;There is no right way to explain the rule, excessive means different things to different people.Perhaps it's just not such a good rule.

[maggie]

This isn't a democracy, and we don't make the rules.
Why are you trying to convince us, when we're not the decision-makers?

I'll recommend to Alex that we just not allow any cursing at all, in any amount. That will make things nice and simple. :rolleyes:

[MeanPatrick]

This isn't a democracy, and we don't make the rules.
Why are you trying to convince us, when we're not the decision-makers?


While this has been stated several times and many of us, or at least I did, have figured out that only through talking to Alex or getting someone to talk to him can the rules get changed. However, the way y'all have implied things, it would seem like talking to you is just as good. Even if it's just fool's gold. And I guess there's the small, faint hope that if someone can convince you, you can convince Alex. However, this too, is just fool's gold.

I'll recommend to Alex that we just not allow any cursing at all, in any amount. That will make things nice and simple. :rolleyes:

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c254/MeanPatrick1/GWC.png

[maggie]

I've implied nothing of the sort. At no point have I suggested that talking to me could possibly have any effect on the rules. I don't believe I've seen the other mods and admins say that they they have control over the rules, but it's possible that I've merely missed those statements. At any rate, let me disabuse you of that notion here and now:

We are the cops, not the lawmakers.

[MeanPatrick]

I've implied nothing of the sort. At no point have I suggested that talking to me could possibly have any effect on the rules. I don't believe I've seen the other mods and admins say that they they have control over the rules, but it's possible that I've merely missed those statements.

You haven't. I was using the "Group You." However Cow did imply such without entirely stating it. In fact, this thread is the byproduct of such implication.

At any rate, let me disabuse you of that notion here and now:

We are the cops, not the lawmakers.

I was never under it, because if the admin business here is anything like some of the forums I use to moderate, then it's, more or less, a no go as far as changing the rules.

[StandingCow]

You haven't. I was using the "Group You." However Cow did imply such without entirely stating it. In fact, this thread is the byproduct of such implication.



I was never under it, because if the admin business here is anything like some of the forums I use to moderate, then it's, more or less, a no go as far as changing the rules.

I implied it without entirely stating it? Where is this half implication that you speak of?

[MeanPatrick]

I implied it without entirely stating it? Where is this half implication that you speak of?


I think your comment of, let the mods decide, was the most accurate point. The rules are new, you guys are not the only ones that have to get used to them, and as I mentioned, with these new rules, things may change, if we decide some of the rules are in fact silly, we will discuss them. So, instead of screaming like a bunch of children that have had their candy taking away, make intelligent posts like kak did about how and why you do not like the new rules. Does that mean we will change them because you don't like them? No, but we might notice something that we did not before..

3char

[LSky]

This isn't a democracy, and we don't make the rules.
Why are you trying to convince us, when we're not the decision-makers?Why do you feel that this is directed to you then, if you don't make the rules?

My point remains,
There is no right way to explain the rule, excessive means different things to different people.If a rule can't be explained right, isn't there something wrong? Since I see this will only lead to everyone explaining the rule differently (perhaps to their own advantage) in case of supposed rule breaking.

[StandingCow]

3char

"We" ment between the mods and alex. Sorry, I cannot specify every single little detail in every single post I make, there are always going to be loopholes. :)

Why do you feel that this is directed to you then, if you don't make the rules?

My point remains,
If a rule can't be explained right, isn't there something wrong? Since I see this will only lead to everyone explaining the rule differently (perhaps to their own advantage) in case of supposed rule breaking.

While it is not directly directed at us, it is our job to try and explain the rules as well as to enforce them. And also, since we enforce them, to defend them. As I explained to marty in an IRC discussion, often that makes us "lightning rods", .. even if we do not agree with some of the rules, in the public eye we will defend them, then disagree and propose changes behind closed doors.

[MeanPatrick]

"We" ment between the mods and alex. Sorry, I cannot specify every single little detail in every single post I make, there are always going to be loopholes. :)

I assumed as much, but others may not have.

[StandingCow]

I assumed as much, but others may not have.

Glad you were smart enough to assume correctly. I figured you guys would understand what I ment, but, now there is no room for error.

[Prowl]

that's a good point. why can't I say something to, say, crosshair, that I would consider appropriate to say to an adolescent half-crazy canadian? why is the standard that of some set of people (grandmothers, judges) who are wholly unrepresented on these forums?

ok, just to clear something up that may have been troubling you.

In a FORUM when you post you are putting up an idea or response that EVERYONE can see. It does't matter if it's directed at one particular individual who may well appreciate the comments, it can be read by all. Thus the standards set will encompass to some degree the potential audience of anything posted.

I know for a fact that there are people at least in the mid 40s and as young as 11 who read these forums. Thus at the very least you have to bear that in mind. We have a COPPA agreement which implies that we allow under 13s on here too.

Our target audience is NOT restricted to half crazy canadian teenagers.

As further clarification, while the moderation team is not responsible for the devising of the rules, they do get some input into the process. Further more Alex is not expected to handle all the flak for any rules he OKs. The administration team (Scav, Swat and myself) have a large say in how the forums are run and thus you should direct all abuse and praise to us in the first instance.

Please don't feel the need to harrass Alex when we are available for precisely that purpose.

[Modest Genius]

While it is not directly directed at us, it is our job to try and explain the rules as well as to enforce themas this thread demonstrates, you've utterly failed at that one in this case
In a FORUM when you post you are putting up an idea or response that EVERYONE can see. It does't matter if it's directed at one particular individual who may well appreciate the comments, it can be read by all. Thus the standards set will encompass to some degree the potential audience of anything posted.fair nuff, good point
I know for a fact that there are people at least in the mid 40s and as young as 11 who read these forums. Thus at the very least you have to bear that in mind. We have a COPPA agreement which implies that we allow under 13s on here too.I didn't think you could register if you were under 13? not that it matters.
As further clarification, while the moderation team is not responsible for the devising of the rules, they do get some input into the process. Further more Alex is not expected to handle all the flak for any rules he OKs. The administration team (Scav, Swat and myself) have a large say in how the forums are run and thus you should direct all abuse and praise to us in the first instance.uh, that's why we've been complaining in this forum. If some members of the mod team feel they have no say in the rules, I don't understand why they are defending them and/or bothering to respond to our complaints. Let those whose domain it is handle it.

[StandingCow]

as this thread demonstrates, you've utterly failed at that one in this case


Hey, I am only human. ;)

[rovens]

Wait...you mean you're not actualy a cow walking around on its hind legs?

[StandingCow]

Wait...you mean you're not actualy a cow walking around on its hind legs?

A human in a cow costume... or maybe its a cow in a human costume... :o :D

[rovens]

A cow in a pantomime cow costume, that way people think you are just a human in a costume. Disguising yourself as yourself, its the purfect plan.

[LSky]

Hmm, I am really waiting for scav to comment before I say something about this idea.Seems like he isn't interested.