Rules & FAQ changes

[Starshine 16,333]

Whoa... Scootie joins the fray

It depends on the exact nature of this screaming. In general, a profanity-laced tirade against the administration and staff would probably not be the best way of going about things. A string of status updates with a picture of your warning and some derogatory text included would also not be very efficient. Now, if your "screaming" consisted of a wall of text mod dispute, then that is actually fantastic and you are likely to make some solid progress. In other words, it really is not possible to say, but I think that simply following the rules and using the mod disputes area would go a long way.

Ah... That clears things up very nicely. I guess I don't really have any further questions then

 

Thanks for the straight answer!

Actually, breaking the forum tables is already well covered. It would fall under making quality posts. If a post breaks the forum layout, then I think that we could both agree that this post is not a quality post. (Especially some of the cases that I have seen, where the page is literally exponentially increased in size by a single post filled with mountains of whitespace. Talk about low quality content.)

Posts - and threads - that lack content are not allowed and may be deleted without notice. Repeatedly creating posts and/or threads that are off-topic, spammy, or otherwise pointless will result in your posting capabilities becoming restricted.

Eenope. There is nothing in the Global Rules that implies that breaking the forum tables are forbidden. If we are talking about low quality posts that are ridden with brain farts, there are a muffinload of them scattered out there, never touched. But I guess this thing should be discussed elsewhere.

. We honestly don't bite.

I find that hard to believe, mister

[Zoop 8,384]

 

However, I digress. I've put my trust in the moderation in this site before, and things have worked out smoothly, so I'm going to nod my head and go along with it, and assume things are for the best, this way. 

 

 

I think Scoots covered about everything (and very well, at that), but I just thought I'd chip in and say that there's really nothing wrong with voicing concerns or misgivings about things like this - we won't know what people are concerned about if nobody speaks up, after all, and as such won't be able to do what we can to set those fears aside.

 

 

Eenope. There is nothing in the Global Rules that implies that breaking the forum tables are forbidden. If we are talking about low quality posts that are ridden with brain farts, there are a muffinload of them scattered out there, never touched. But I guess this thing should be discussed elsewhere.

 

 

It's a bit vague with the present wording. A revision might be worth looking at in the near future.

 

 

I find that hard to believe, mister

 

Likewise. Some chickens carry a mean bite. 

[Zacharias 191]

I'm mostly ok with this, since it doesn't really affect me. If I feel like I've been warned unfairly, I'll just delete my account and never come back, I mean I'm not obligated to be part of a FiM community in order to enjoy it.

As for the <13-year olds banned, I feel it might be a bit unfair to some of them. What if a 12-year old had became a really thoughtful and important part of the community, and now they got banned and robbed of their virtual friends? I think you should've only made further registration for <13-year olds impossible, and not ban those that are already here, but what do I know.

I should probably just mind my own business.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Zacharias

[NavelColt 22,878]

I'm mostly ok with this, since it doesn't really affect me. If I feel like I've been warned unfairly, I'll just delete my account and never come back, I mean I'm not obligated to be part of a FiM community in order to enjoy it.

I would hope you'd try and talk with us first before you quit, though, in such a hypothetical scenario. While I commend your mindset of maturely taking your activity as a user elsewhere if you feel you've been mistreated (instead of doing any number of immature things I can think of off the top of my head), the fact remains that if you don't give us a chance to communicate with you about your concerns, then everybody loses. Maybe that's what you meant in the first place, though :3 I couldn't tell.

 

* Also, as a very minor side point, you can't delete your account, and as time goes on, admins aren't going to be deleting them for people, either. With Pony.FM and possible further expansion plans occurring down the line that plan on synching accounts, deleting an account on one of our sites would cause a hassle for Feld0 to deal with. Simply leaving the site has the same desired effect of leaving, without causing the staff team a mess to clean up afterwords.

 

As for the <13-year olds banned, I feel it might be a bit unfair to some of them. What if a 12-year old had became a really thoughtful and important part of the community, and now they got banned and robbed of their virtual friends? I think you should've only made further registration for <13-year olds impossible, and not ban those that are already here, but what do I know.

 

As for the age limit, that's unfortunately not our call. As our FAQ entry regarding the age limit rule states, laws placed by the Government such as COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act) more or less tell us that we're responsible for people's privacy who under thirteen. Since the staff here do not have the resources, knowledge or time to deal with mountains of parental permission paperwork that we'd have to repeat with the parents of every single person under thirteen who wants to join, our only other option is to prohibit them from joining entirely. This is, in fact, what most sites do.

 

However, we can't only prohibit people from under thirteen from joining, we need to also remove people who are under thirteen who happen to slip by. How would people slip by? Simple. This is the internet. Anyone can lie about their age, and make themselves as old as they want. People slip by all the time, which is precisely why we have to have a ban rule against them as well, so that if they slip their real age somewhere on the board, we can take appropriate action.

 

It's worth noting that people who are banned for being underage are not actually 'banned', they're 'suspended'. Key difference to note there. 'Banned' usually carries with it the term 'indefinite', or 'forever'. 'Suspended' is temporary. Their suspension ends the moment they turn thirteen, and they're welcomed back in full.

[Concord 1,982]

Hello!

 

This isn't a major change, surely, i can live with this. If you want to avoid problems with these new additions, i'd suggest trying to avoid Warning points in the first place.

 

Never knew there was a "13 or older years" Policy. Though, i do agree, i've seen quite a fair number of posts that wouldn't be appropriate for a younger audience.

[Prismatic 49]

Never knew there was a "13 or older years" Policy. Though, i do agree, i've seen quite a fair number of posts that wouldn't be appropriate for a younger audience.

 

It's not so much the content of the posts as so much as the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (or COPPA for short).  I don't fully understand it but the premise is "If it is a submittable text [box] for the public to see somepony under the age of 13 needs to have parental permission to use it."

Edited January 26, 2013 by Prismatic

[Zacharias 191]

Hello!

 

This isn't a major change, surely, i can live with this. If you want to avoid problems with these new additions, i'd suggest trying to avoid Warning points in the first place.

 

Never knew there was a "13 or older years" Policy. Though, i do agree, i've seen quite a fair number of posts that wouldn't be appropriate for a younger audience.

*coughcoughcough threads about sexuality, shipping and not to mention the "naked in your bed" thread coughcoughcough*

I see why they would do something like this, but it's not going to make it impossible for kids to find things they shouldn't see (I'm looking at you, 4chan)

[Concord 1,982]

*coughcoughcough threads about sexuality, shipping and not to mention the "naked in your bed" thread coughcoughcough*

I see why they would do something like this, but it's not going to make it impossible for kids to find things they shouldn't see (I'm looking at you, 4chan)

 

Hello!

 

No, it won't. But the forums will atleast stay safe themselves.

 

You can't really do much about 4-Chan, it's there to stay. The internet is a wild place for sure.

[spas-ticShotty 3,584]

Is this Soviet Russia? 

 

It disappoints me that rules of such mediocre nature have to be enforced. I don't understand why the staff can't be criticized for its actions. I was under the assumption that being a part of the staff automatically equalled maturity that would allow staff members to rise above "drama" and ignore it. I can understand certain rules to try and maintain order, but this goes over the line in becoming far too controlling. 

 

Does this count as a violation of this new rule?

I agree with you 100%. I didn't say anything about this before because, well, I just didn't want to, and I thought it was best to ignore this whole situation (Which I should've kept to) but really, I'm highly against the "no complaining about staff decisions" rule. The mods don't want us to complain about their decisions? That's like saying we can't complain about Obama's decisions or else we receive a hefty fine , and if it continues, deportation out of the US (Mirrors the bans here).

Edited January 29, 2013 by  spas-ticShotty 

[Starshine 16,333]

I'm highly against the "no complaining about staff decisions" rule. The mods don't want us to complain about their decisions? That's like saying we can't complain about Obama's decisions or else we receive a hefty fine

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that key Gear already said earlier that you and everyone are allowed to complain, as long as you direct the complaining directly to the mods and not as some passive-aggressive status or blog post to incite drama

In general, a profanity-laced tirade against the administration and staff would probably not be the best way of going about things. A string of status updates with a picture of your warning and some derogatory text included would also not be very efficient. Now, if your "screaming" consisted of a wall of text mod dispute, then that is actually fantastic and you are likely to make some solid progress.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Starshine

[spas-ticShotty 3,584]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that key Gear already said earlier that you and everyone are allowed to complain, as long as you direct the complaining directly to the mods and not as some passive-aggressive status or blog post to incite drama

Ooooohhh...................well, Clari just got points for complaining, and she wasn't even cursing. She was being pretty civilized IMO .......whatever, I won't question it here. Whatever floats the staff's boat......even though I don't agree with it at all.

[Shadow Chaser 633]

Not sure why there are so many folks up in arms about this.  As long as you remain polite you can pretty much still do what you want.  The staff is just trying to avoid unnecessary drama from vague status updates about bogus rules and things of that nature.  And if you really want to complain about having a warning, just PM your friends.  It's stated that PMs are never read so you can go to town complaining there.  Or, there are Instant Messagers that can be used.  None of the rules stated are really all that harsh.  In fact, this is still one of the most relaxed forums I've ever been a part of.

 

Just take a deep breath and if you feel treated unfairly or disagree with a mod, take it up with another mod.  With the staff as it is there is a hefty system of checks and balances to work in your favor if you were legitimately wronged.  However, if the warning you received was well deserved, don't expect much.  The rules are pretty easy to not break around here.

[Scootalove 10,689]

The staff is just looking out for our best interests or best of heart. They want to make sure their forums are clean, safe, and well fun for every member on here. If they made these new rules, I hereby side with them on this.

[spas-ticShotty 3,584]

The staff is just looking out for our best interests or best of heart. They want to make sure their forums are clean, safe, and well fun for every member on here. If they made these new rules, I hereby side with them on this.

Well, ATLEAST they let us complain in Support Tickets. Boy, do I love to rant in them.

 

Not to be rude, but, it annoys me how much you guys are kissing up to the staff, but whatever floats you guy's boat. I would rant about this, but the mods wouldn't allow me, soooo.........yeah. Another rule I don't agree with whatsoever.

Edited January 29, 2013 by  spas-ticShotty 

[Scootalove 10,689]

Well, ATLEAST they let us complain in Support Tickets. Boy, do I love to rant in them.

 

Not to be rude, but, it annoys me how much you guys are kissing up to the staff, but whatever floats you guy's boat.

I understand your not trying to be rude.

I'm not really kissing up to anyone, don't need to. Just putting my opinion out there. sorry

[Shadow Chaser 633]

 

it annoys me how much you guys are kissing up to the staff

It's not "kissing up" if you agree with the rules.  It's a matter of, people having no problem with the rules that are set down.

 

Like I said, it's way too easy to not break the rules here. 

[Zoop 8,384]

 

I agree with you 100%. I didn't say anything about this before because, well, I just didn't want to, and I thought it was best to ignore this whole situation (Which I should've kept to) but really, I'm highly against the "no complaining about staff decisions" rule. The mods don't want us to complain about their decisions? That's like saying we can't complain about Obama's decisions or else we receive a hefty fine , and if it continues, deportation out of the US (Mirrors the bans here).

 

 

I'm going to quote a statement that Feld0 made regarding the idea of comparing MLP Forums to a political state, and/or complaining about freedom of speech

 

 

I don't like saying this, but MLP Forums is not a political state. It is not a democracy. It is my privately owned property. A membership in MLP Forums is not a citizenship, and it does not grant you any rights. It is a name tag you stick to your shirt as a guest at my party, so everyone else at my place knows who you are. I reserve the right to choose the music, the colour of the wallpaper, to kick you out, and to stop the party at any time. If I want to have a trance party, but everyone wants rock-and-roll, I'm not obliged to turn it into a rock-and-roll party.



Your friend doesn't get to decide what you install on your computer just because you let him use it to check his email, right? He's welcome to suggest that you replace Internet Explorer with a better browser, but the decision to actually do so lies with you.



You have as much control as a member of MLP Forums as you do as a guest at a party, or a guest in your friend's computer. In other words, you have none, and expecting otherwise means you failed to read the terms of use, the terms of service, and the global rules. These are things you should read before registering on any site you go to, but I've gone to the extent of sending you an automated message when you sign up and forcing you to stay on the ToS page for 30 seconds and then explicitly check a box to document your agreement with the terms before you can even do anything on the site.



So... it is, in fact, perfectly fair and allowable for the staff (or even just I on my lonesome) to make decisions without consulting the members directly. By activating your account and checking the box on the ToS page, you stated that you're cool with this.

 

That said, how many places, if we truly wanted to completely stifle criticism we'd close down the feedback board and axe the moderation dispute system completely. We have avenues by which criticism is accepted, and rules regarding how and when it can be given. I have not been to many communities that don't have similar policies, though said policies are sometimes unspoken, rather than being spelled out for everyone to see like ours is.

 

Honestly, compared to some folks we're pretty cuddly when it comes to our policy regarding complaining about certain things. That said, let me quote a portion of Platinum Server Management's Terms of Service.

 

 

Public feedback

We have a zero tolerance policy for posting negative feedback on any public location about our company and/or our employees before submitting a ticket to our Feedback department to discuss your issue will result in immediate account termination without any refund. Although it is your right to post feedback without discussing your issue with us first, it is undoubtedly unfair and unprofessional not to, which is not the type of client we want to deal with. We have the utmost respect for all of our clients, and are more than fair with all of our clients. We will do anything and everything possible to keep all of our clients satisfied. But in the unlikely event you are not satisfied, all that we ask is to discuss your issue with our Feedback department first. For example, if you are the type of person to run to the forums at the first chance you get to complain, please do not sign up with us. Furthermore, all of our policies that pretain to keeping information given to us confidential including but not limited to our privacy policy, confidentiality agreement, non-disclosure agreement are nullified once you discuss your experience publicly. For example, if you make a post in public, then you are waiving your protection of privacy.

 

Pretty harsh, huh? Makes us sound like a bunch of kittens, if you ask me.

 

 

Ooooohhh...................well, Clari just got points for complaining, and she wasn't even cursing. She was being pretty civilized IMO .......whatever, I won't question it here. Whatever floats the staff's boat......even though I don't agree with it at all.

 

I think you misunderstand. Warning complaints, disputes, etc, and similar can only be done via moderation disputes - it doesn't matter if you're civil or not when complaining or talking about them in public.

 

---

 

I'd like to touch upon one last thing before I finish up over here... and that's freedom of speech. I've seen a few people comment about how this new rule goes against freedom of speech, with the suggestion (in some cases) that we're miserable tyrants for it.

 

My suggestion for anyone that feels that way about this rule, or any of our rules is to read this article, Free Speech in Online Communities: The Delusion of Entitlement. It is extremely long, but it does a good enough job of summing up why such statements are nonsensical that I don't feel the need to write anything special on the subject myself.

 

At any rate, I love all of you. <3

[spas-ticShotty 3,584]

It's not "kissing up" if you agree with the rules.  It's a matter of, people having no problem with the rules that are set down.

 

Like I said, it's way too easy to not break the rules here. 

After what happened with Clari (Which I'm not going to do into detail here at all), not so much......but I guess I should just try deal with it (Which I've been doing a good job with ever since mah suspension, although today has sorta tried it).

 

 

 

 

I'm going to quote a statement that Feld0 made regarding the idea of comparing MLP Forums to a political state, and/or complaining about freedom of speech

 

 

 

That said, how many places, if we truly wanted to completely stifle criticism we'd close down the feedback board and axe the moderation dispute system completely. We have avenues by which criticism is accepted, and rules regarding how and when it can be given. I have not been to many communities that don't have similar policies, though said policies are sometimes unspoken, rather than being spelled out for everyone to see like ours is.

 

Honestly, compared to some folks we're pretty cuddly when it comes to our policy regarding complaining about certain things. That said, let me quote a portion of Platinum Server Management's Terms of Service.

 

 

 

Pretty harsh, huh? Makes us sound like a bunch of kittens, if you ask me.

 

 

 

I think you misunderstand. Warning complaints, disputes, etc, and similar can only be done via moderation disputes - it doesn't matter if you're civil or not when complaining or talking about them in public.

 

---

 

I'd like to touch upon one last thing before I finish up over here... and that's freedom of speech. I've seen a few people comment about how this new rule goes against freedom of speech, with the suggestion (in some cases) that we're miserable tyrants for it.

 

My suggestion for anyone that feels that way about this rule, or any of our rules is to read this article, Free Speech in Online Communities: The Delusion of Entitlement. It is extremely long, but it does a good enough job of summing up why such statements are nonsensical that I don't feel the need to write anything special on the subject myself.

 

At any rate, I love all of you. <3

Zoop, as much as you tried, you haven't sold me at all. I'm still against this rule and there's nothing you can do to change mah opinion on it. That being said, I'm gettin' outta this thread before I rant to the point I get points. I think it's the most logical thing to do.

[Prismatic 49]

I'm going to give it my hoof to see if I can make a difference in regards to Spas-ticshotty's opinion.  I'm in full support of the rules here and to a lesser extent somewhat jealous that where I came from that the rules didn't address this (they're along the lines of being respectful to staff in which arguably one can easily make a respectable post about how poorly a staff member is performing).  The site in question is "defunct" (quotations for sarcasm; I know...I don't like adding it in there but nonetheless).  It's hard to see a moderator's point of view unless you've actually been in their horseshoes.  Anyways, the points to cover herein are the following:

 

1.  Why I feel the new rule is in effect.

2.  Why logging information is important

3. (or rather 2B) How the ticket system simplifies everything.

4.  Why here they're being upfront with the rules.

 

Cause well, for me, I knew good and well in my time there that I eventually had to ban the most popular user on the site (in terms of friends being that the site isn't a forum a friend count is the only way to reliably judge how much of an impact they are on the community).  It was not a choice that I made lightly.  They broke the rules and admittedly I don't recall any rules about temporary bans for repeated offenses (see point 4 above).  So the ban was placed about 5AM I believe (aside: being the late night moderator was also not a terribly fun experience but the abundance of European users made it all the worthwhile).  As far as I remember I was backed by the administrator with the decision (and I believe it was forgotten hence point 2 but not the focus of that point) on the following day.  Since that user had me on Skype their first course of action was to simply give me a piece of their mind about the ban and continually kept asking me about it.  All I could tell them was why I banned them but anything more than that they would have to follow the procedures listed on the rules page and take it up that way.  Instead they continually kept badgering all the staff they had on Skype in which I blocked them and suggested to the others to remove them as well (point 3).  The beauty of a properly maintained support system is that when needed staff can review what goes on in terms of disputes in which they can't in PMs, Skype, the forum, blogs or even status updates.  Let's just say currently a poorly maintained ticket system can easily invoke point 2 however I will not be able to go into that (hint: It exists but not in the fashion it is here).

 

After I removed them from Skype they decided to go and flame me not on the site but on a similar brony site.  While they did a nice dissection of the information I provided on Skype they still leaned towards the logic that I disliked them and that I was intentionally out to get them (despite the fact that I humorously gave them notices about how thin of ice they were...Which can either be a good or bad thing depending on one's style.  One would think getting on a mod's bad side would trigger something).  Bad rep is bad rep and while I can't control it the interpretation was that they were trying to look at what I did as a reason for their grief towards me and the site.  Stuff like that, no matter how cold my crystal heart gets, still hurts in that I do what I am expected to and there is always somepony either twisting the truth or not fessing up to what they really did.  Yes, I will admit there were other mods that did unfair things but unless there are rebellious users they are more likely to take the side of the more responsible mod than anypony else.

 

With that said they left well mannered feedback but at the same time triggered another issue, consistency.  The issue I faced multiple times is the whole "Oh well if this user has the ability to do this then I can as well" which doesn't really bode well at times.  For the most part I remember apple to orange situations to where both images were in bad taste but one was clearly violating the rules while another was not.  My feeling for why this is in place is because it's really, really, really hard to define an appropriate threshold for things like this and also allows users to try and limbo under the rules.  By doing it this way users and staff can ensure that everypony is treated fairly.  Moderation is not easy (although I do have a false sense of forums being a lot easier to mod than other kinds of sites but I know better than that) and it takes some time and effort.

 

Since the admin nor I was online when the head got to it the user as unbanned (and after a month or so I had to ban them, permanently again.  This issues point 2 above).  Overall though there's a reason why it should be this way.  The staff are people too and the the whole mod public feedback will always create drama.  Although as far as I know currently there is no provision regarding it there and certain staff members do get bashed constantly (I am no longer active there so just going by what I skim through when I get bored).

 

Oh well...Hope this all made sense.

[Pinkazoid 3,493]

I disagree with nearly everything, and I'm really starting to hate how members are just agreeing to the mods because of their superiority over them, I'm not gonna go in a full on rant mode, since I know I'll most likely get ignored, or receive my first warning points, which I'd hate to earn in such a thread.

 

I'll just say that we really need to make sure the members enter a valid age, I'm pretty sure certain members aren't over the age, they just never entered an age, but with my lack of solid evidence, I cannot prove as so, but if the mods tried to look into it a bit more, they'd realize who I'm talking about, and as much as I hate to admit so, I'd prefer them gone to restore some sort equality, because when Crazy Misty, and age old member who was incredibly mature for his age, and joined since the beginning, left, the only thing we said was that we were gonna miss him.

 

Now, as for the no complaining thing, I'd understand if it was a common thing between one user, such as making 6 statuses in a row complaining about it, but can't someone say "Got some warning points over posting _______" on a status update? Those are easy to ignore, and I'm sure not many will mind those. :L

[Alex Kennedy 1,228]

I disagree with nearly everything, and I'm really starting to hate how members are just agreeing to the mods because of their superiority over them, I'm not gonna go in a full on rant mode, since I know I'll most likely get ignored, or receive my first warning points, which I'd hate to earn in such a thread.

 

I'll just say that we really need to make sure the members enter a valid age, I'm pretty sure certain members aren't over the age, they just never entered an age, but with my lack of solid evidence, I cannot prove as so, but if the mods tried to look into it a bit more, they'd realize who I'm talking about, and as much as I hate to admit so, I'd prefer them gone to restore some sort equality, because when Crazy Misty, and age old member who was incredibly mature for his age, and joined since the beginning, left, the only thing we said was that we were gonna miss him.

 

Now, as for the no complaining thing, I'd understand if it was a common thing between one user, such as making 6 statuses in a row complaining about it, but can't someone say "Got some warning points over posting _______" on a status update? Those are easy to ignore, and I'm sure not many will mind those. :L

1. Who says that we're only agreeing with the staff because of their "superiority" over us? Why is it so hard to believe that we think these rules are perfectly reasonable?

 

2. I honestly can't figure out what you were actually trying to say in the second paragraph. You may have a perfectly good point, I just don't know what it was.

 

3. Why is it such a big deal that you can't complain about getting a warning? Do you really feel such a strong urge to broadcast the fact that you got a warning to everyone else in the forums? Frankly, I don't think anyone really cares that you got a warning, so why do you need to tell them?

[Prismatic 49]

One of the things I forgot to add is that I like the fact the staff here are willing to forgive members (the maximum of forgiveness being 39 weeks obviously).  Most places if I recall once a user is warned it is stuck with them until they're banished to the moon.

[Bronium 512]

 

Why is it such a big deal that you can't complain about getting a warning? Do you really feel such a strong urge to broadcast the fact that you got a warning to everyone else in the forums? Frankly, I don't think anyone really cares that you got a warning, so why do you need to tell them?

 

 

To get their opinion on the warning? I mean, you might think the warning itself might be unfair, but you might need a friend to explain why it actually is fair. I mean, I doubt you're going to agree with the staff members as to why it's unfair. Even if they themselves didn't personally give the points. 

 

Also, it's no different from complaining about your mum or school to your friends. It's a way of venting, which is good for you, in my opinion. I mean, you want to express your opinion. That's why you join a forum in the first place, right? I mean, telling your opinion to the support staff, is almost telling it to a brick wall. I doubt there's a big fight between staff members in most tickets, so complaining to them is of no comfort, since no one is backing you up. Now, I'm not saying this is a valid reason to curse the staff to hellfire for all eternity, but it certainly a reason as to why you'd want to do so.

 

Lastly, I think it's to do with the world today. I'm having a hard time explaining this, but I feel when an authority figure flexes their abilities in any way, people kind of get defensive.  

 

That's what I think at least. Hope that answers your question.

 

Also, as to the "I don't think anyone cares", you may be wrong. Friends, especially close friends care.  I mean, I'd like to know why my friend is pissed. Maybe even provide him or her with a bit of support or perspective. 

[Pinkazoid 3,493]

1. Who says that we're only agreeing with the staff because of their "superiority" over us? Why is it so hard to believe that we think these rules are perfectly reasonable?

 

2. I honestly can't figure out what you were actually trying to say in the second paragraph. You may have a perfectly good point, I just don't know what it was.

 

3. Why is it such a big deal that you can't complain about getting a warning? Do you really feel such a strong urge to broadcast the fact that you got a warning to everyone else in the forums? Frankly, I don't think anyone really cares that you got a warning, so why do you need to tell them?

Well, it's what happens in every forum, I have no intentions to offend the staff of the forums but the whole "You can't complain" rule is quite annoying, it's probably because I've been here for longer, and that my "standards" for the forums remains. I joined when there was no age limit, no character limit, no warning system, suddenly these things come, and all I'm doing is wondering "Really, why is this necessary, we used to be fine without it" It's probably just me though, but I've seen MANY good members leave because of this.

 

As for the Under 13 rule, the biggest cause of it is an old thread, and when it occurred, it affected all of the forums, having anyone under 13 removed, the rule just became official, but the filter has been here for months now, and since we used to have an option to skip adding an age, certain underage members still remain here, and I got good idea on who they are, although for the sake of them and the others, I won't mention their names, but I think requiring that every member enters a valid age would be best.

 

I've never gotten a warning before, nor do I plan to, my friends on the forums have said why they've gotten warnings, I don't see much problem with that, but I think it's unreasonable if they say so in a status update and receive more warning points for it, especially if they remain a calm tone at it.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Pinkazoid

[Zoop 8,384]

I disagree with nearly everything, and I'm really starting to hate how members are just agreeing to the mods because of their superiority over them, I'm not gonna go in a full on rant mode, since I know I'll most likely get ignored, or receive my first warning points, which I'd hate to earn in such a thread.  

 

 

We don't give warnings for criticism. That said, is it completely outside the realm of possibility that people may simply agree with our stance on certain things because they legitimately agree with the direction we've taken?

 

 

I'll just say that we really need to make sure the members enter a valid age, I'm pretty sure certain members aren't over the age, they just never entered an age, but with my lack of solid evidence, I cannot prove as so, but if the mods tried to look into it a bit more, they'd realize who I'm talking about, and as much as I hate to admit so, I'd prefer them gone to restore some sort equality, because when Crazy Misty, and age old member who was incredibly mature for his age, and joined since the beginning, left, the only thing we said was that we were gonna miss him.

 

 

Since the minimum age requirement was put into place (something that is fairly standard across the entirety of the internet, I should add), there has been an age check put forth before all new registrations on the forum. Sadly, it is exceptionally easy to lie about your age. That said, I for one do make a point to look into such things a bit when I believe someone may have lied about their age - sadly though, there's often nothing for me to look into beyond the date of birth that they specified upon registration.

 

I'm not going to claim that I enjoyed going through and suspending everyone that was below the minimum.

 

 

Now, as for the no complaining thing, I'd understand if it was a common thing between one user, such as making 6 statuses in a row complaining about it, but can't someone say "Got some warning points over posting _______" on a status update? Those are easy to ignore, and I'm sure not many will mind those. :L

 

We have things the way they are for the sake of consistency - we don't want a situation where people can claim that we came down hard on one person for a status update or two, while having ignored another entirely. "It's only okay sometimes" just does not work very well, and would only make things worse. 

 

As it stands, the rule is crystal clear - there is no confusion, there is no bias.

 

 

One of the things I forgot to add is that I like the fact the staff here are willing to forgive members (the maximum of forgiveness being 39 weeks obviously).  Most places if I recall once a user is warned it is stuck with them until they're banished to the moon.

 

To be technical, the warnings themselves remain on record though the point values decay. One of the primary reasons that we moved to a warning oriented system was to ensure that we had records of all infringements associated with a specific account, complete with notes and other information. Promotes good communication, which has proven on many occasions to be absolutely vital so far as we've continued to grow.

 

 

To get their opinion on the warning? I mean, you might think the warning itself might be unfair, but you might need a friend to explain why it actually is fair. I mean, I doubt you're going to agree with the staff members as to why it's unfair. Even if they themselves didn't personally give the points.

 

 

If the warning isn't fair, a moderation dispute is the only action that matters. It will either be overturned, or the warning - and the reasoning behind it - will be explained in excruciating detail; it isn't a yes or no affair, whenever someone comes to me regarding a warning I break it down for them.

 

Not only that, but making a public status update isn't exactly the same thing as simply talking to a friend about it - it's more along the lines of going into a crowded public space and yelling about it.

 

 

Also, it's no different from complaining about your mum or school to your friends. It's a way of venting, which is good for you, in my opinion.

 

Do you complain about your mum to your friends in front of your mum? I won't disagree that venting is useful; God knows I do plenty of it myself, but there is a time and place. That is what this rule is about. Time and place.

 

 

I mean, telling your opinion to the support staff, is almost telling it to a brick wall. I doubt there's a big fight between staff members in most tickets, so complaining to them is of no comfort, since no one is backing you up. Now, I'm not saying this is a valid reason to curse the staff to hellfire for all eternity, but it certainly a reason as to why you'd want to do so.

 

 If we're a brick wall that is unwilling to listen to reason, and that are happy to allow the moderation to do whatever they like and give whatever unfair warnings they want, complaining to your friends isn't going to do anyone any good or change anything. If that is what we are, and that is what we are doing, then why is anyone even here?

 

You're right, there are no fights in most tickets because most tickets are mundane, but with that said, I don't get shy about confronting people when things aren't done properly... thankfully, however, I can count the number of times I've had to do that on two hands.

 

 

Lastly, I think it's to do with the world today. I'm having a hard time explaining this, but I feel when an authority figure flexes their abilities in any way, people kind of get defensive.  

 

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head, sadly.

 

 

Also, as to the "I don't think anyone cares", you may be wrong. Friends, especially close friends care.  I mean, I'd like to know why my friend is pissed. Maybe even provide him or her with a bit of support or perspective. 

 

And it is nobody's goal to prevent you from doing that - the last thing I want is for anyone here to be stewing in anger alone with nobody to talk to; but that doesn't change the fact that there is, again, a time and place for everything. There are some things that people simply do not talk about in the open in front of the entire planet; this should be viewed as hardly being any different.

 

 

Well, it's what happens in every forum, I have no intentions to offend the staff of the forums but the whole "You can't complain" rule is quite annoying, it's probably because I've been here for longer, that my "standards" for the forums remains, I joined when there was no age limit, no character limit, no warning system, suddenly these things come, and all I'm doing is wondering "Really, why is this necessary, we used to be fine without it" It's probably just me thought, but I've seen MANY good members leave because of this.

 

Everything you've listed as being a point of annoyance has been completely and utterly vital to our continued growth. The age limit was necessary to prevent us from being a potential target of legal action (even as far-fetched as it that may sound, I do not want Feld0 shouldering any unnecessary legal liability for anything), the character limit was necessary to keep this place from turning into Twitter (and, I might add, has helped to stave off a lot of complaints we were seeing elsewhere about the quality of discussion here plunging into the depths of the ocean). 

 

Speaking specifically on the warning system, it was necessary beyond words or measure - the old "system" may have worked when we were able to keep track of nearly every member, and when we personally knew almost every member, but as the forum grew and that turned out to be completely and utterly impossible, it became completely and utterly necessary to have a means by which we could keep records of rule infractions and have a general baseline for when some manner of punishment was necessary. The old "system" was good only for allowing trolls and people with malicious intent to linger longer than they should have honestly been allowed to, due to a lack of collective awareness on the part of the staff brought on by a lack of a means by which we could keep records and notes regarding member behavior. If we were to dump the present system at this point, I would resign, leave, spit in the general direction of the server, and never look back.

 

 

As for the Under 13 rule, the biggest cause of it is an old thread, and when it occurred, it affected all of the forums, having anyone under 13 removed, the rule just became official, but the filter has been here for months now, and since we used to have an option to skip adding an age, certain underage members still remain here, and I got good idea on who they are, although for the sake of them and the others, I won't mention their names, but I think requiring that every member enters a valid age would be best.

 

The age verification used by IP.Board comes in the form of a pre-registration check; once that check is passed during registration, users are able to enter whatever they like in the age field. Requiring people to enter some random numbers wouldn't keep anyone from lying about anything unfortunately.

 

 

I've never gotten a warning before, nor do I plan to, my friends on the forums have said why they've gotten warnings, I don't see much problem with that, but I think it's unreasonable if they say so in a status update and receive more warning points for it, especially if they remain a calm tone at it.

 

While we do not have any established warning levels for this rule (this could change depending on how things go), so far all of the warnings given for breaking the new rule have been extremely light in terms of points given. Our goal is not to slap eleventy zillion points onto someone for every little off-hand mention of warnings; it is more to give them a reasonably gentle (depending on the context) prod to the shoulder as a general reminder that some things are not appropriate to be discussed in open sight.

 

None of us are trying to be dicks or evil tyrants; rather, we're just trying to do what we can to keep this place comfortable and enjoyable for everyone here. You might be surprised at how many reports "I got a warning!" status updates and threads bring in, with the most common report comment being some manner of request that the drama being created through them be stopped.

 

If we did not truly believe that this change would be beneficial to the community as a whole, it would not have been suggested internally or implemented in any capacity. 

 

That said, even if people disagree with the rule, I hope that they will at least give us credit for being willing to discuss and debate it and its merits openly and candidly, and for not attempting to put an end to any and all criticism.