Rules with no holes, unlike a smoker's lungs

[Frunk]

@King.: What specifically about statuses?

 

@Dark: *Gives self high-five* :P

[OmegaWave]

I hardly see any new rules they look the same as the old rules.

 

I would like to see a new rule about the status updates to be added onto the thread.

 

1. That's because there aren't any new ones. They've been shaved down from 24 to 7 and have been reworded a bit.

 

2. No there shouldn't. There is a button next to the "recent status updates" section that removes the entire list from view. If you don't want to see a long one, then just close the entire list. Problem solved.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

These rules are purposefully vague as there is no way that every breach of them can possibly be anticipated.

 

This's total nonsense. Obviously' date=' ANY breach of the LISTED rules is punishable, even those which aren't anticipated. What you're trying to say is that anything the staff don't take a liking to can be punished as there's no limit to what the staff may choose to take a disliking to.

 

Maybe the staff should chill and not feel this ridiculous compulsion to punish everything in their path, listed or not? It's actually not too difficult to write out all of what you consider worthy of punishment, especially considering that the rules can be further edited. Your lack of ability to communicate what it is you're going to punish the member base for is [b']not our problem[/b], it's yours.

 

Your "solution" for the whole trolling problem could use revision too. Say a moderator tells a member to cease posting. They must stop? Obviously, this's a blunt example, but it gets the point across. Generally, your mod would be as vague as you are and use something along the lines of "your post is trolling, please cease from such posts".

 

These rules give a whole deal of leverage to malicious moderation. That's a problem. The rules should not be designed to convenience the moderator and create fear within the general member base.

 

For rule 5, "spamming" isn't the offense, it's a vague umbrella term for the offenses it's used to label. Why not break that into seperate rules. Short posts, double posts, flooding, and advertising. You've got a great description for advertising, double posts are straightforward so they shouldn't be much trouble, but you should clarify the exact boundaries for short posts, how short can posts be? What's the line between frequent but legit posting and "flooding"? They're seperate important categories needing to be addressed.

 

Then there's rule 7. What happened to allowing banned members to make a second account as long as it was only for diplomatic purposes to PM moderators and resolve any issue without said accounts being allowed to post? Having staff have final say and not letting regular members have a say at all aren't the same thing.

[Frunk]

The moderators of this site have been appointed as they have the confidence of YCMaker that they will carry out their jobs in a manner that is appropriate and fair. While in practice that line you quoted does indeed afford moderators the power to consider whatever they please a breach of the rules, this is not only acceptable, but necessary in order for them to function to the best of their ability. If you feel that a moderator is acting unfairly or corruptly, you need to bring it up with an administrator or other super moderator.

 

That goes for trolling, too. Obviously, posting is not considered trolling. Certain types of posting are considered trolling, so a moderator has no case to tell a member to stop posting completely, and again, in the unlikely case they do, that member would need to take it up with an administrator or super moderator. If a moderator is telling a member that something they were doing is trolling, they will be specific and clear in their explanation. A good moderator does not enjoy banning anybody, so steps should always be taken to try and put members on the right track. We're not as incompetent as you seem to think.

 

For reasons stated, the rules are vague, including the No Spamming rule, as moderators will assist members in ceasing their wrongful conduct or activity as that is their job. I'm not sure if you understand, but these rules are just a platform the rest of the forums' rules to be built off. The rules need to be considered in conjunction with the rules set from each section of this site, where moderators now, unlike before, have the power to run a section as they want. We are only human and we do not do well trying to do things to a letter other than our own.

 

Banned members have never been allowed to make a new account to "debate their ban". I have no idea where you got that idea but that's not how things have ever worked. Double-accounting to breach a ban has always resulted in the original ban being upgraded to permanent. Usually, members don't have a case, but if they do they can contact YCMaker by email, as was done when I banned Crab Helmet. If a member does not have enough common sense to explore the appropriate avenues, that is not my or any other member of staff's problem.

[Limited Edition KING]

@King.: What specifically about statuses?

I would like to see usual forum rules be implemented within the status updates. Like trolling other peoples profiles/status updates for example.

[Frunk]

I would like to see usual forum rules be implemented within the status updates. Like trolling other peoples profiles/status updates for example.

 

The future of the status system is being considered by the staff team. ;)

[Limited Edition KING]

The future of the status system is being considered by the staff team. ;)

Good to hear ^^

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

HEY GUYS THESE ARE THE RULES

 

OK SO WE CAN BAN OR WARN YOU AT OUR WHIM FOR ANY REASON OR LACK THEREOF K CYA

 

BTW THESE RULES HAVE NO HOLES AND ARE SHORT

 

YOU SHOULD USE THEM LOL

 

Banned members have never been allowed to make a new account to "debate their ban". Double-accounting to breach a ban has always resulted in the original ban being upgraded to permanent.

 

Icy allowed it for quite some time. As long as you didn't post' date=' it was legit. Wasn't a bad idea, good way to resolve issues if a member feels that their ban is improper. Like when Brow banned me for 6 months on the basis that I'd hacked Frlf and porn-spammed when Frlf really just hotlinked an image. This wasn't in effect back then, but it's an elegant solution imo. Staff's lack of coordination and your inactivity is not the member base's problem. It's not "double-accounting to breach a ban" in any way, shape, or form.

 

The moderators of this site have been appointed as they have the confidence of YCMaker that they will carry out their jobs in a manner that is appropriate and fair. While in practice that line you quoted does indeed afford moderators the power to consider whatever they please a breach of the rules, this is not only acceptable, but necessary in order for them to function to the best of their ability. If you feel that a moderator is acting unfairly or corruptly, you need to bring it up with an administrator or other super moderator.

 

1, the banning of people who shouldn't be banned but rather in some way gained the contempt of said moderator ISN'T acceptable. Bans are drastic measures which can cause a LOOOOT of drama and chaos for everyone if executed improperly. (ie. Draco). Bans should only be used when those being banned are actually threatening towards the rest of the member base. Casual banning sprees are not bloody acceptable.

 

2, if I feel that a moderator is acting unfairly or corruptly and contact an administrator, the administrators in question do nothing. It cannot be assumed that the moderators mean good will towards the member base because YCMaker or Falling Pizza has appointed them after 2 glances. (ie. Yankeefan.)

 

Double-accounting to breach a ban has always resulted in the original ban being upgraded to permanent.

 

Not since 2009? Your lack of knowledge of the history of the board is impairing your judgment. You still assume that YCMaker actually responds to anything. He still owes you $20 Reece.

[Frunk]

It's hard for me to see the validity in your points when I have to try and look past the unprovoked hostility you're showing, Polaris.

 

HEY GUYS THESE ARE THE RULES

 

OK SO WE CAN BAN OR WARN YOU AT OUR WHIM FOR ANY REASON OR LACK THEREOF K CYA

 

Welcome to the Internet pal.

 

Icy allowed it for quite some time. As long as you didn't post, it was legit. Wasn't a bad idea, good way to resolve issues if a member feels that their ban is improper. Like when Brow banned me for 6 months on the basis that I'd hacked Frlf and porn-spammed when Frlf really just hotlinked an image. This wasn't in effect back then, but it's an elegant solution imo. Staff's lack of coordination and your inactivity is not the member base's problem. It's not "double-accounting to breach a ban" in any way, shape, or form.

 

What Icy, Browarod or anybody else allowed in the past is not relevant. If they allowed it they should have updated the rules themselves but they and all the other mods perused these rules and had no issue with no double-accounting under any circumstances. There are channels to be taken with administration and jumping the queue by making a new account is not allowed, period.

 

1, the banning of people who shouldn't be banned but rather in some way gained the contempt of said moderator ISN'T acceptable. Bans are drastic measures which can cause a LOOOOT of drama and chaos for everyone if executed improperly. (ie. Draco). Bans should only be used when those being banned are actually threatening towards the rest of the member base. Casual banning sprees are not bloody acceptable.

 

2, if I feel that a moderator is acting unfairly or corruptly and contact an administrator, the administrators in question do nothing. It cannot be assumed that the moderators mean good will towards the member base because YCMaker or Falling Pizza has appointed them after 2 glances. (ie. Yankeefan.)

 

Like I've said repeatedly already, banned members who believe they have been wrongfully punishment must take up their issue with administration via email. The administration has in the past and will act if the claim(s) are valid. This I found out first hand.

 

I'll repeat, the staff team has signed off on these rules, including Falling Pizza. I'm just the one who wrote them upon instructions and suggestions from the rest of the staff. Just because something has been different "since 2009" is not my problem. There are no "rules to the Internet" or supreme forum-running etiquette to follow when creating the rules of a forum so YCM staff can and will run this site as we please.

 

If you do not like that, you don't have to stick around.

[Chaos Dralcax]

the last of the old rules is not in the new ones. is it now an unwritten rule, or no longer in effect?

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

They are not meant to be comprehensive as this way, honestly, allows for more flexible moderating. You bother with comprehensive rules and people will find loopholes all over the place.

Comprehensive rules are designed to stop loop hole abuse. These rules, as evident from the very title of rule 1, grant moderators the final say in everything. Spamming, trolling and all these shunned behaviors are still arbitrarily decided, but now there's no point in arguing with the mod. Which really just sounds like the same old story, just in an abridged version.

 

 

Oh, and moderators are apparently supposed to be making the forum an enjoyable experience for everyone. I'd think about that before responding to Polaris' points with a "WELL THATS TOO BAD" when they're completely valid.

[Dark]

I kind of have a simple solution to one of the problems posed by Corporal Atlas and whoever that other dude is (love ya, Polaris).

 

Why don't mods just not ban people without a valid reason? It's not like the government comes to your house and arrests you for no reason. I'm pretty sure that the mods have enough common sense and logic to know when a ban is valid and when it is invalid.

 

owait...

 

 

[Frunk]

I just write the rules. Considering my extremely limited powers here I can't control how my superiors may or may not choose to use them. I will not answer to criticisms of these rules, only questions.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

I just write the rules. Considering my extremely limited powers here I can't control how my superiors may or may not choose to use them. I will not answer to criticisms of these rules, only questions.

You write the rules, that's the exact same thing as controlling how people use them.

[Frunk]

You write the rules, that's the exact same thing as controlling how people use them.

 

No, it is not, since you yourself have pointed out that they have several interpretations, and keeping in mind the different attributes of each moderator and his respective conduct. That, and I am not an Administrator, or even a Super Moderator, here. I have no authority and therefore no responsibility for any Staff member other than myself.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Then I humbly suggest you consider a system in which somebody banned under false pretenses can take issue with the decision so that my enjoyment of the privilege that is YCM can be maximized and the rule that states within itself that moderators must obey the rules themselves can be further emphasized.

[Frunk]

Then I humbly suggest you consider a system in which somebody banned under false pretenses can take issue with the decision so that my enjoyment of the privilege that is YCM can be maximized and the rule that states within itself that moderators must obey the rules themselves can be further emphasized.

 

Banned members can take their case to YCMaker or Falling Pizza but they must not do it by making a new account. YCMaker should still be reachable via "[email protected]", while Falling Pizza has Twitter.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

What about people that are active more regularly then when all the planets have aligned?

[Frunk]

What about people that are active more regularly then when all the planets have aligned?

 

Many Super Moderators have MSN, and people can even add and talk to me if they want to. If I feel they have a case I'll be happy to help them make it.

[Darkest Hour]

Do you have a relative idea of "We will not argue over technicalities" amongst your rules that way people can't try to find loopholes to break the rules?

[Frunk]

Do you have a relative idea of "We will not argue over technicalities" amongst your rules that way people can't try to find loopholes to break the rules?

 

Rule 1 gives complete power to the moderators making loopholing impossible, even if there is a case to be made by the member attempting to loophole. It may not seem like the fairest way of doing things but that's how the current Mod team want it.