About the New Forum Rules

[Goose]

No, but we really dont need to look into the law in order to set our own rules for what level of lewdness we want and what age demographic we have (Which seems to be 13-25 I guess).

 

But if we are taking this "we need to keep this place safe to a degree where we can't have some kind of action taken against us for negligence because as far as the forum is concerned we're accepting of all age groups" it seems weird if no one has actually looked into the law.

[Rodrigo]

Now would be an interesting time to see what Draco has to say about this.

[Althemia]

But if we are taking this "we need to keep this place safe to a degree where we can't have some kind of action taken against us for negligence because as far as the forum is concerned we're accepting of all age groups" it seems weird if no one has actually looked into the law.

Given that the website is primarily hosted from London, the laws we've been using are from the EU Directive for Protection of Minors in the Media Environment which constitutes that a person/persons can be held responsible, fined or imprisoned for sharing content that may be deemed as "harmful" to a minor which does constitute sexually explicit content if they are below the age of consent. As such, websites failing to uphold the EU Directive can also be fined and subsequently also taken down provided the case be bad enough to warrant such.

 

(At the very least, this is from my understanding of it. I have very limited experience from law, but by researching this is what it brought up. If there are law experts actually here that can explain this more in detail, then that'd be appreciated.)

[Aerion Brightflame]

Going by the EU law we are still allowed freedom of expression for harmful content that might shock offend or disturb so long as it is not flat out illegal content. Meaning that so long as nothing we bring up is illegal in say London, or the US, then we are covered anyway by the EU laws. 

 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2013/130462/LDM_BRI(2013)130462_REV1_EN.pdf

 

Top left of the third page on this. I am also not a legal expert, so I'm just going by what I've read here.

 

I would argue we are covered anyway so long as we get rid of anything that could be classified as illegal content. So get rid of the obvious porn and the rest of it would be fine. 

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Given that the website is primarily hosted from London, the laws we've been using are from the EU Directive for Protection of Minors in the Media Environment which constitutes that a person/persons can be held responsible, fined or imprisoned for sharing content that may be deemed as "harmful" to a minor which does constitute sexually explicit content if they are below the age of consent. As such, websites failing to uphold the EU Directive can also be fined and subsequently also taken down provided the case be bad enough to warrant such.

 

(At the very least, this is from my understanding of it. I have very limited experience from law, but by researching this is what it brought up. If there are law experts actually here that can explain this more in detail, then that'd be appreciated.)

Wait a minute, aren't the servers in California? Wouldn't that make American law the applicable law for YCM?

[Althemia]

Wait a minute, aren't the servers in California? Wouldn't that make American law the applicable law for YCM?

I was always under the impression the site was actually hosted in London.

 

EDIT: Well, looks like they are situated in America. In which case, good job I pretty much had no part in making any of this lol

[Azuriena]

Basically, would you be fine viewing this site publicly?

 

On this, and basically what Toyo said, I wouldn't mind if the current course of action taken for questionable content became the standard. That course of action being hiding said content in spoilers, and said content being content that is "not explicit but not exactly something you'd want to be seen with in public." (As Mr Gadjiltron describes it.) I'll have to take Moogy's siggy as an example again, but I wouldn't want to be seen browsing with that on my screen in public. That said, I'm fine with it existing on this site under spoilers. This fits within the purpose of the new rules as you say it here.

 

And hopefully that also means that questionable, but not explicit, content of females can exist on this site along with the male ones, under these spoilers.

[Susie]

As much as I dislike having to use spoilers for my sig and wish we could go for the idea of anything that fits under PG-13 being out in the open, ill tolerate the idea of questionable content being under them. Id also hope for questionable of women being allowed under spoilers too, but I can understand if the double standard is too much.

[Just Crouton]

Get rid of the "second chance" for perma'd members.

 

If more than 80% of YCM are adults, as previously exaggerated in this thread, then we're old enough to know our actions have consequences, to know how to act right in some capacity, and to be responsible for knowing the rules and asking for clarification if needed.

[cr47t]

It's like Cowcow said; the rules are too broad and could be a bit more specific. However, you mods show absolutely no signs at all of fixing this; please find a way to do so soon or at least let us know that you are listening.

[vla1ne]

Get rid of the "second chance" for perma'd members.

 

If more than 80% of YCM are adults, as previously exaggerated in this thread, then we're old enough to know our actions have consequences, to know how to act right in some capacity, and to be responsible for knowing the rules and asking for clarification if needed.

even adults can be granted a second chance. not to mention there's a cool down and you still have to argue your case. not to mention even if you're an adult, you are not infallible. adults can get carried way at times as well, we may be mature enough to handle ourselves, but that doesn't mean that we're infallible. besides, YCM is where some of us come to let off some stress, or just cut a bit more loose than we can outside, it's expected that we be a bit looser, and occasionally somebody loses it, a second chance is perfectly fair. nobody's getting shot online, so i see no reason not to initiate a second chance for those who've learned their lesson.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm not ok with this Perma WP deal. Back in like febuary, the mods grouped together all my past actions (which they for some reason handn't punished me for) and made me go from 0 WP to 10 in the matter of hours. After I had spent my week banned, Roxas, gave me 2 more WP for telling someone to read, which was somehow abusive behavior.

 

This isn't even getting into how bullshit carry forward WP's are. But when you have Perma WPs. Mods w/ beef vs you will just start throwing warnings at you for things even they accept is very minor just to silence you through the weekly bans. The mod teams has proven time and time again that they cannot stand above the fray, giving them powers like this isn't a good idea

[vla1ne]

I'm not ok with this Perma WP deal. Back in like febuary, the mods grouped together all my past actions (which they for some reason handn't punished me for) and made me go from 0 WP to 10 in the matter of hours. After I had spent my week banned, Roxas, gave me 2 more WP for telling someone to read, which was somehow abusive behavior.

 

This isn't even getting into how bullshit carry forward WP's are. But when you have Perma WPs. Mods w/ beef vs you will just start throwing warnings at you for things even they accept is very minor just to silence you through the weekly bans. The mod teams has proven time and time again that they cannot stand above the fray, giving them powers like this isn't a good idea

you mean this right?

 

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/statuses/user/105552-night/?status_id=419359

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

you mean this right?

 

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/statuses/user/105552-night/?status_id=419359

Does that even cover the bullshit Roxas did? Most of that was directed at Aix bunching up everything I ever did and decided that he could just mass punish me

 

I just recently realized how god awful certain mod members were. Threatening 6 month bans for example. The punishment rulings might as well be renamed "Excuses to take a sheet on Winter Rules"

[vla1ne]

Does that even cover the bullshit Roxas did? Most of that was directed at Aix bunching up everything I ever did and decided that he could just mass punish me

 

I just recently realized how god awful certain mod members were. Threatening 6 month bans for example. The punishment rulings might as well be renamed "Excuses to take a s*** on Winter Rules"

well, you have the pms i assume, so you'd know the full extent.

 

it's not an excuse to sheet on you in particular, i don't think it's a good rule, but at the same time, i doubt that it was meant to target you specifically. (ok, you're among the more likely members that it'll hurt since you're among the more abrasive members here, but i don't think it was meant specifically to sheet on you) if anybody, dae would be the person i'd assume it targeted.

[Jord200]

I was always under the impression the site was actually hosted in London.

 

EDIT: Well, looks like they are situated in America. In which case, good job I pretty much had no part in making any of this lol

 

 

I always thought they were out of Canada.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

I always thought they were out of Canada.

If you notice the cities and such when the forum doesn't work, then you can see the servers are in America.

[Aix]

I admit it was a mistake to drop that heavy of a warn on that instance before investigating more as an outside party.

 

The cumulative warns basically is to sheet on Winter really. Him and Dae and any problem people who may come up in the future. However, it does make sense as a rule regardless. Repeat problems need stronger measures.

[Agro]

animal defecating

wait

 

[spoiler=so i can't post this perfeclty harmless and hilarious image of a pigeon dropping a bomb on a child's head?]

 

 

 

Yes its male, there be no booby here.

well there is a booby but it be male booby

 

and i find it very provocative

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

wait

 

[spoiler=so i can't post this perfeclty harmless and hilarious image of a pigeon dropping a bomb on a child's head?]

 

 

 

 

well there is a booby but it be male booby

 

and i find it very provocative

I got 5 warning points for a picture of sheet

 

Don't risk it

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

I don't know if you guys recall this, but there was an incident where a member posted a picture of a cow defecating in Miscellaneous (and linked it to another member). Images of that magnitude (and including actual pictures of poop in the toilet, which someone posted) are forbidden. I will not name specific people. 
 
However, the image Agro posted should be fine. Again, do you want to be seen viewing these types of images in public at a place like, say a library or area that is known to have plenty of kids? (Yes, some of you have/had pets and already see this kind of stuff, but don't post them on this site)

 

The pigeon doing it on someone is fine; actual poo in the toilet isn't. 
 

This is the problem. There shouldn't be variation of what one deems acceptable or not. It should be blanket across the board. If one deems it acceptable, and one doesn't, which one do you listen to? This leads to inconsistent moderation, and mixed signals. It needs to be fixed.

 
We are aware that a general standard needs to be fixed (and this was one of the reasons we even brought the new rule up). Even if we have a defined standard, there will always be gray area as to what crosses the line and what isn't. (General idea should be PG-16 all around)

 

I cannot speak for the other staff members as for their tolerance levels.
 

It's like Cowcow said; the rules are too broad and could be a bit more specific. However, you mods show absolutely no signs at all of fixing this; please find a way to do so soon or at least let us know that you are listening.

 
We are working on a revision, mind you. We're not saying anything specific to you all now, but we are talking about the acceptable sexuality / content level. 
 
The warn system will remain in place, however it is NOT directed towards specific members directly. Rather, it applies for all members who start drama on YCM and otherwise make it unpleasant for the rest of us to enjoy their stay here, especially if we've warned you to knock it off in the past.

 

----

I will admit that the new rules are vaguely written (which led to you all thinking that ALL forms of sexuality/violence were banned, which they are not) and more discussion on the matter was needed (which we are having now). However, let it be known that other moderators WERE asked to weigh on the new policies beforehand several times during the course of discussion; in that time, only 3-4 moderators even said anything. 

[~British Soul~]

I don't know if you guys recall this, but there was an incident where a member posted a picture of a cow defecating in Miscellaneous (and linked it to another member). Images of that magnitude (and including actual pictures of poop in the toilet, which someone posted) are forbidden. I will not name specific people. 

Don't forget about the guy who posted horse dicks everywhere in 2011 if I recall.

[Jord200]

.....Did.....did that actually happen, Sakura? Good God....

 

 

 

 

@British Why did you bring that back up, and why do you remember that?

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

.....Did.....did that actually happen, Sakura? Good God....

 

 

 

 

@British Why did you bring that back up, and why do you remember that?

 

Yeah, people actually posted that kind of stuff in Miscellaneous. Instances were spread widely apart, but they happened. 

 

As for British, I don't seem to remember (maybe I was on hiatus or just didn't care) but that is definitely inappropriate. 

[Goose]

It was Byakk and Ser and Byakk wasn't even banned for it