Specifics on what is and isn't allowed in posts

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Let's make something good of that shitshow, shall we?

 

I think that a bit in the rules (maybe even one of those things that goes over the subforums) specifically stating what is considered appropriate content is well-deserved, since it clearly is a point of contention. Yes, there is the classic "just ask a mod" but let's be honest with ourselves. The mods are a slider scale. What one mod may consider completely appropriate, another may consider to be worthy of a warning.

 

So let's just put it in one place, where it is on an official record, what is and isn't allowed (flaming could also be cleared up here because I have seen it as a big issue recently) so that people know what is okay to post, and people know what they should report. Honestly I think what we currently have is too vague to really work off of.

[Lunar Origins]

funk you, you piece of sheet

 

^ Something like that would not be allowed.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

 

Really though. Your original ban would not have happened/would have been justified if we actually had some specifics on that. The "don't be a dick" policy seems good and all, but members are constantly harassed and nobody seems to give a sheet.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Really though. Your original ban would not have happened/would have been justified if we actually had some specifics on that. The "don't be a dick" policy seems good and all, but members are constantly harassed and nobody seems to give a sheet.

I mean, I think it WAS justified. Klav and I were pretty much torching the forum in that dick measuring contest. What irritated me was how the mods went after me and let him remain around for another year before banning him.

 

That being said, most of YCM staff is fair af, and the "harassment" is in good nature (ie. "Well yes,) or just kicking a newer member into TCG or General's routine 

 

 

 

It's admirable that you want to iron out what the rules actually are, but removing that elastic clause would weaken the mod's power, and thus would never happen

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

or just kicking a newer member into TCG or General's routine 

This isn't something that should be a thing.

 

​And it isn't all in good fun tbh. People here are unnecessarily rude, often just for the sake of it (or perhaps to feel superior) and it just sours the forum.

[epicmemesbro]

What one mod may consider completely appropriate, another may consider to be worthy of a warning

This type of thing is a pretty common issue on other sites as well. Even the site of the clan I'm in has this issue and we are doing what we can do address it. One thing we did is make some sort of guideline system where if one of the clan members that are in the council (aka mods) would see some post that seems iffy they would refer to the guideline to see if the post was within bounds. The guideline system thing has many possible scenarios in which if a post would be against the rules or ok. The decision of weither each scenario would be rule breaking or ok was decided by a vote between all council members. And if the guidelines didn't have a scenario that was similar to the iffy post, the council would decide either or not the post broke a rule, and once decided that instance of that iffy post would be added to the guideline for future reference. This system kept all the council members on the same page on what was rule breaking or not. I don't know how it would be implemented here though.

[Maeriberii Haan]

@Winter

 

Yeah, honestly my biggest mistake back then was not dunking you both. Was pretty incensed against you back then, and saw you as the one pouring the gasoline to the forum. In retrospect Klav did as much as you back then so it should've been either both of you get dunked, or both of you get off semi-lightly. At least this does get you the ability to return though.

 

Anyway, outside of something as blatant as Kate's example, it's hard to actually specify since it rely a lot on context. A guideline would seriously helps, but I don't think it's something that can actually be implemented.

 

And hell, the line between friendly banter, malicious insults, harmless trolling, insults in general, and such is actually pretty blur. One mod would see these differently from the others.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This isn't something that should be a thing.

 

​And it isn't all in good fun tbh. People here are unnecessarily rude, often just for the sake of it (or perhaps to feel superior) and it just sours the forum.

Well I mean, great posters like Black can come off aggressive. It just sets the the high standard for what TCG SHOULD be. I don't know why that's necessarily a bad thing. Maybe a distinction should be drawn between rude and heated? Cause heated debates tend to blur that line IMO

 

@Nai Tis all good. The good thing about YCM is that the staff is forgiving as funk. Klav got his many chances and y'all did let me return eventually. This kinda covers for the gray area of rules I guess

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Well I mean, great posters like Black can come off aggressive. It just sets the the high standard for what TCG SHOULD be. I don't know why that's necessarily a bad thing. Maybe a distinction should be drawn between rude and heated? Cause heated debates tend to blur that line IMO

Not like the aggression is required for it to be a good post.

[Kazooie]

Not like the aggression is required for it to be a good post.

 

I tend to avoid agreeing with Winter on things, but he said "Come off as aggressive"

 

That's kinda a key part of it. Black's posts might be rough, but they don't target people until they make it personal, and then he defends himself if they lower the bar to personal attacks. At one point he was bad about overreacting, sure, but nowadays? His posts might be 'aggressive' to some people because he doesn't sugarcoat things. He doesn't go around insulting people, but he isn't going to support bad mindsets either, and some people view those as personal attacks. That aggressiveness isn't him being rude, it's just him being blunt. Is that enough for a punishment?

 

Black isn't really a good example from either side here. Sometimes TCG (and other sections from time to time) get out of hand for sure, but Black isn't the one doing it. There have certainly been posters in the past who DO take it way too far though, and... I don't think this idea is really feasible to handle the issues. It's easy to tell when something goes too far, and those should be punished accordingly, but when it comes to issues that kinda toe the line, it's harder to come up with a general consensus on where that line should be.

 

Even if it does get clarified, it's still... A mod by mod basis in the end, you know? There might be an overarching set of things that works for big infractions, but the minor things will still be a grey area and different mods will still look at those things and get different results from it. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

 

Dropping in to say I'm pretty sure he meant more in general than Black specifically.

-----

Anyway. I feel like part of the problem is that it IS a mod by mod basis. Because someone easily could get punished and then say "No no this mod said it was okay." Then what do you do? When one mod says it's fine to say/post something, but another thought it was punishment-worthy? Do we go with the mod who okayed it or not?

If we go with the one who said it's okay, then that means the other mod suddenly has to use a different scale, and what if it's the most lenient mod who did it? Does everyone have to be just as lenient?

If we go with the one that punished, is that fair to the one being punished? Who had asked and was told it was fine, then gets punished for it?

[MiracleGhost47]

If we go with the one who said it's okay, then that means the other mod suddenly has to use a different scale, and what if it's the most lenient mod who did it? Does everyone have to be just as lenient?

If we go with the one that punished, is that fair to the one being punished? Who had asked and was told it was fine, then gets punished for it?

You could do a middle-line type of thing. Don't punish the one who asked for permission the first time the mistake is made, but punish him/her the second time if there is failure to follow the updated rules. 

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

This is an issue that the mod team is going to have to discuss amongst ourselves about how to handle things (as an unified thing). As already mentioned, each of us will have a different tolerance for particular behaviors. This is my take on certain issues; evil, Night and the others will most certainly have their tolerance levels (which can/will differ) for the same things. 

 

1. I don't mind you guys having constructive discussions in General and TCG (and having strong opinions towards a topic / not agreeing), but if things get to the point where you guys are just throwing insults at each other or otherwise being (passive)-aggressive towards one another, then we have a problem (regardless if it's a discussion or elsewhere)

 

Stuff like what Kate posted earlier as an example is definitely not acceptable (and would probably get an Abusive Behavior warn). It doesn't matter if you do it in a post or insult someone in PMs.

 

2. With regards to swearing in posts, I'm fine with you guys using profanity in posts (assuming you aren't using it as insults towards other members), but just don't abuse the lack of swear filters (for those of you who have it turned off). I know Yin wasn't really fond of swear words back during her modship (at least in excess), but otherwise, provided you aren't using them to directly offend other members and used in moderation, I'm not going to warn you guys for swearing in posts.

 

This also doesn't give you permission to swear in other members' statuses indiscriminately (see note about being aggressive towards others). Some members don't like other swearing in their statuses, even if it's not directed towards them.

 

For the purpose of card design, having any explicatives in your card names is forbidden. (There was a member who actually did this recently; he has been dealt with accordingly)

 

3. For general discussion between you guys, I'm generally fine with you making a few jokes here and there (but any that are of a sexual nature [or implications thereof] should be saved for PMs amongst yourselves or offline on Skype; not here).

 

There are some other issues, but I'll address them later. 

 

As Nai already mentioned, it depends on the context of the situation in which action is taken (and section). We don't have a "one size fits all" approach to things, so it boils down to the situation which things occurred. 

 

----

As for Klavier though, we did give him too many chances (after the 2nd time we told him to stop + he failed to listen, he should have been banned).  I don't know what happened that got him banned in the first place however, but I will assume for similar behavior.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I tend to avoid agreeing with Winter on things, but he said "Come off as aggressive"

 

That's kinda a key part of it. Black's posts might be rough, but they don't target people until they make it personal, and then he defends himself if they lower the bar to personal attacks. At one point he was bad about overreacting, sure, but nowadays? His posts might be 'aggressive' to some people because he doesn't sugarcoat things. He doesn't go around insulting people, but he isn't going to support bad mindsets either, and some people view those as personal attacks. That aggressiveness isn't him being rude, it's just him being blunt. Is that enough for a punishment?

 

Black isn't really a good example from either side here. Sometimes TCG (and other sections from time to time) get out of hand for sure, but Black isn't the one doing it. There have certainly been posters in the past who DO take it way too far though, and... I don't think this idea is really feasible to handle the issues. It's easy to tell when something goes too far, and those should be punished accordingly, but when it comes to issues that kinda toe the line, it's harder to come up with a general consensus on where that line should be.

 

Even if it does get clarified, it's still... A mod by mod basis in the end, you know? There might be an overarching set of things that works for big infractions, but the minor things will still be a grey area and different mods will still look at those things and get different results from it. 

Black just seemed like an example of a person who can both lay things as they are, (therefore coming out as a little aggressive), and also one that has respect around the place. Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you