Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: regarding the recent change of rules

  1. #1
    Global Moderator Scrotty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    сводник
    Posts
    4,689

    Default regarding the recent change of rules

    hi moderation team

    i would appreciate if this post is not replied to with 'USE THE CONTACT US BUTTON' and locked, as i seek clarification not only for myself but for the entire forum. i also want to give others the chance to comment or ask questions, and neither of these goals can be achieved through private communication. concordantly, i have started this thread in the site discussion forum so that discourse can proceed civilly and free from the questionable language of others that seems to be preventing answers to my concerns in other forums.

    i'll address each of the rule changes in turn.

    - ANY discussion of bans / infractions will result in an immediate infraction of 2 points.
    this is particularly (possibly intentionally?) ambiguous and is in desperate need of clarification. would it be possible to explain what exactly constitutes discussion of bans or infractions? specifically, does this refer to infractions received personally or to other members? does this refer to infraction points themselves or actions that result in infractions? for example, which of the following sentences would this rule apply to?
    "i have to be careful in the applying forum because i'm already on two infraction points"
    "he gave shit to some noob in applying, he'll probably get infractions for that"
    "this website has a system in place where failure to comply with the rules may result in infraction points being issued"
    "hey, that's spamming! you're so banned!"

    the wording of the rule implies that ALL of these sentences are subject to a 2 point infraction, which seems unnecessarily draconian.

    - If you have any issues relating to the moderation or administration of this site, you should use the CONTACT US link at the bottom of the site. Each and every email sent in this manner will be read, and if necessary, a reply will be sent. This communication is private between the administrator and the person who initiated the contact.
    let's take a specific case into consideration here: the recent restoration of my post in the 'inaka' thread within the applying forum. under the current rules, i posted in the site discussion forum (as appropriate), the post was restored, and people were aware of it - the perfect system. under the proposed rules, the restoration would have to be requested via private communication, and as such nobody would be aware of it. once the post was restored, i would have been unable to even inform anybody of such as it would fall under the discussion of contents of a "contact us" email rule. considering the time it took to restore the post as well as the time the post was made, it was several pages back in the discussion, and nobody (including the person it was directed at!) could be made aware of it. is this supposed to be an improvement on the current system?

    - Any discussion of the contents of these "Contact us" emails will result in an immediate ban.
    this is reasonable enough, and falls in line with existing rules regarding private communication with moderators. however, consider the following. under the current system, if someone's post is edited by a moderator, it is usually followed by a 'hey why was my post edited?' comment, with others also posting curious comments as to what was posted and why it was edited. the moderator usually replies with a simple single sentence reason as to why the post was edited, and peoples' curiosity is sated. under the proposed system, none of these posts would be possible without breaking rules, and the administrator would be receiving "contact us" emails from not only the person involved and those that usually express curiosity, but also from those who are usually content to sit back and wait for the moderator's response. how is this any better than the rules that are already in place?

    - possibly more to come
    a minor yet potentially very important question - if more do come, will they take effect at the same time as the new rules already outlined, or will a separate 24 hour timeframe apply to them?

    thankyou for taking the time to answer my questions

    edit: thought of another one. will discussion of rules relating to infractions/bans earn infractions/bans?
    Last edited by Scrotty; March 3rd, 2010 at 22:16.

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scrotty View Post
    hi moderation team

    i would appreciate if this post is not replied to with 'USE THE CONTACT US BUTTON' and locked, as i seek clarification not only for myself but for the entire forum. i also want to give others the chance to comment or ask questions, and neither of these goals can be achieved through private communication. concordantly, i have started this thread in the site discussion forum so that discourse can proceed civilly and free from the questionable language of others that seems to be preventing answers to my concerns in other forums.
    Discussion of rules is permitted within this forum.


    i'll address each of the rule changes in turn.

    "- ANY discussion of bans / infractions will result in an immediate infraction of 2 points."

    this is particularly (possibly intentionally?) ambiguous and is in desperate need of clarification. would it be possible to explain what exactly constitutes discussion of bans or infractions? specifically, does this refer to infractions received personally or to other members? does this refer to infraction points themselves or actions that result in infractions?
    I thought it was pretty clear. However, let's clarify. Any discussion relating to specific bans or infractions will result in an infraction. It involves any ban / any infraction - no matter who it involves. It refers to the actual infraction/ban. Any queries regarding what actions result in infractions should be made through the contact us link or in this site related forum.


    for example, which of the following sentences would this rule apply to?
    "i have to be careful in the applying forum because i'm already on two infraction points"
    "he gave shit to some noob in applying, he'll probably get infractions for that"
    "this website has a system in place where failure to comply with the rules may result in infraction points being issued"
    "hey, that's spamming! you're so banned!"

    the wording of the rule implies that ALL of these sentences are subject to a 2 point infraction, which seems unnecessarily draconian.
    The above are ok because they do not talk about a specific ban/infraction. The purpose of this rule is to prohibit discussion relating to why an infraction/ban has been issued to a particular user. It is also there to prohibit discussion of moderator/administrator actions relating to infractions/bans. If someone wants to have a discussion relating to infractions/bans, they can use the contact us link to send me an email and I will reply to it.

    "- If you have any issues relating to the moderation or administration of this site, you should use the CONTACT US link at the bottom of the site. Each and every email sent in this manner will be read, and if necessary, a reply will be sent. This communication is private between the administrator and the person who initiated the contact."

    let's take a specific case into consideration here: the recent restoration of my post in the 'inaka' thread within the applying forum. under the current rules, i posted in the site discussion forum (as appropriate), the post was restored, and people were aware of it - the perfect system. under the proposed rules, the restoration would have to be requested via private communication, and as such nobody would be aware of it. once the post was restored, i would have been unable to even inform anybody of such as it would fall under the discussion of contents of a "contact us" email rule. considering the time it took to restore the post as well as the time the post was made, it was several pages back in the discussion, and nobody (including the person it was directed at!) could be made aware of it. is this supposed to be an improvement on the current system?
    If you wish to bring everyone's attention to something like a restored post resulting from the communication with me using the contact us link, you may make another post in the thread pointing the particular post out. You may quote it, refer to it by post id, link to it, etc, etc. You may also state that it had been restored by a member of staff after discussions with the admin if you wish. You may not post any details on these discussions however.

    "- Any discussion of the contents of these "Contact us" emails will result in an immediate ban."

    this is reasonable enough, and falls in line with existing rules regarding private communication with moderators. however, consider the following. under the current system, if someone's post is edited by a moderator, it is usually followed by a 'hey why was my post edited?' comment, with others also posting curious comments as to what was posted and why it was edited. the moderator usually replies with a simple single sentence reason as to why the post was edited, and peoples' curiosity is sated. under the proposed system, none of these posts would be possible without breaking rules, and the administrator would be receiving "contact us" emails from not only the person involved and those that usually express curiosity, but also from those who are usually content to sit back and wait for the moderator's response. how is this any better than the rules that are already in place?
    Discussion of moderation decisions are prohibited on the site. Any post on the site asking why a decision was made will result in an infraction. To discuss moderation decisions, use the contact us link.

    "- possibly more to come"

    a minor yet potentially very important question - if more do come, will they take effect at the same time as the new rules already outlined, or will a separate 24 hour timeframe apply to them?

    thankyou for taking the time to answer my questions
    There will be another 24 hour grace window on any additional rules to give people time to become aware of the rule.

    A notice will be made detailing when new rules go into effect.
    Need a website hosted? ITIL runs on webhosting provided by BigWetFish. They're really great - check them out at bigwetfish.com. Sign up using the link and you'll also be helping ITIL with commission!

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scrotty View Post
    edit: thought of another one. will discussion of rules relating to infractions/bans earn infractions/bans?
    Discussion of rules is permitted in this site related forum but not discussion relating to why an infraction / ban was given.
    Need a website hosted? ITIL runs on webhosting provided by BigWetFish. They're really great - check them out at bigwetfish.com. Sign up using the link and you'll also be helping ITIL with commission!

  4. #4

    Default Re: regarding the recent change of rules

    Why, though?
    Quote Originally Posted by mothy View Post
    I will not miss the Keihin Tohoku when I jump in front of it.

  5. #5

    Default Re: regarding the recent change of rules

    ignore it Meelynn, theres been another change: no rules. Keeps everything simple for the users and for me.
    Need a website hosted? ITIL runs on webhosting provided by BigWetFish. They're really great - check them out at bigwetfish.com. Sign up using the link and you'll also be helping ITIL with commission!

  6. #6
    Senior Member Shankerbelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ibaraki dust bowl
    Posts
    2,591

    Default Re: regarding the recent change of rules

    Is that accross the whole forum? including Applying and the like?


  7. #7

    Default Re: regarding the recent change of rules

    yeap
    Need a website hosted? ITIL runs on webhosting provided by BigWetFish. They're really great - check them out at bigwetfish.com. Sign up using the link and you'll also be helping ITIL with commission!

  8. #8

    Default Re: regarding the recent change of rules

    sweet! Partay!

  9. #9

    Default Re: regarding the recent change of rules

    Watching this shitstorm is about as painful as this, but not quite!


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •