Suggested Rule Revisions

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I post this thread with the intent of creating an open discussion, so while I am going to highlight specific rules that I take issue with, feel free to discuss any part of the current rules and contribute any ideas you might have to improve them.

 

This subject has always been important to me because while I don't ever wish to become a moderator I believe an environment in which we can co-exist without nasty surprises and dramatics, and that for this to happen input is required from moderators and members alike in drafting rules. 

 

Ideally, we'd have newly-revised rules, no retroactive punishments based on posts before they take effect, and an understanding between staff and members moving forward so the rules aren't vague as they are and punishments don't blindside people and appear ambiguous. 

 

 

First of all, staff have final say.

 

This is a very old rule that has been a part of YCM for as long as I can remember. It is the first rule mentioned first both the current draft of the rules and its predecessors as it is to a large extent the basis and foundation for all subsequent rules and punishments.

 

In practice, this rule is neither realistic nor sustainable. The staff's unity depends on their shared sense of purpose based on their observations of the active member base that they have always been a small portion of on this site. Any unorthodox action taken by a staff member demands the scrutiny of all other moderators, and so any invokation of "final say" is then subject to the "final say" of the rest of the staff. This rule fails to take into account the staff's capacity for self-reflection and critical thinking that takes its root in the staff's purpose. Any staff member who believes the staff's purpose is to antagonize the member base will not last long. The staff has to have a unified understanding that they exist to serve the member base and admit that the members have as much say as mods have, or the staff will fall upon eachother. I've seen it happen time and time again on this site. This rule is as much of a problem for the staff as it is to the member base, and because it's problematic in general it should be discarded. 

 

 

These rules are purposefully vague as there is no way that every breach of them can possibly be anticipated. Stating something was not precisely covered in the rules will be ignored. Staff do indeed have the final say.

 

This was in Frunk's previous edition of the rules but I address it as it's still relevant. The staff should be vigilant in anticipating breaches and consistent and unbiased in their application of punishments as possible. If something that isn't covered in the rules comes up, the rules should be amended.

 

 

Do not complain about it in public (e.g. in the status bar or in a thread).

Attacking a moderator will get you into even more trouble, if not a permanent/IP ban from YCM, depending on the severity. If PMing them does not work, feel free to contact a Super Moderator.

 

A sub-section of the above rule. The reason that complaining about it in public (especially in cases of "heightened severity") is such a problem is simply the potential for such complaints to divide the staff and result in internal conflicts and demotions. That is the reason it *can* result in the harshest possible punishments (permanent/IP ban), though members do complain in public fairly regularly and such harsh punishments aren't assessed.

 

Members inevitably complain in public where complaints in public are earned by rogue moderators, and it's up the staff to reassess their role and sort things out internally when one of their own oversteps their bounds. This further emphasizes how the "staff has final say" rule prevents the staff from doing their job properly. I suggest that a section be made for such disputes, with permissions for banned members to post in if possible. 

 

 

Minimum age limit
Keep in mind that you must be at least 13 years of age to participate in any forum activities on YCM, as per our Privacy Policy and compliance with COPPA.

(It does not matter if you live in the United States or elsewhere)

If you are found to be under the age of 13, the staff is under legal obligation to suspend your account until you are of the required age. It is extremely difficult to know if you are underage, so if you are, either stick to using the cardmaker or DO NOT blurt out your actual age in the forum or on your profile.

 

Suggested omissions:

"(It does not matter if you live in the United States or elsewhere)": If it "does not matter", there's no point in mentioning it and the rule being applied regardless of nationality is understood.

 

"It is extremely difficult to know if you are underage, so if you are, either stick to using the cardmaker or DO NOT blurt out your actual age in the forum or on your profile.": This statement in of itself makes the staff appear culpable, as though it's okay for pre-teens to use the forums so long as they don't "blurt out their age". If they do, the punishment is clear. If they don't, it isn't the staff's responsibility to magically detect them. This is a "don't ask don't tell" policy when it's up to the staff to make it clear that pre-teens aren't allowed to use the forums.

 

 

No inappropriate content.

YCM is a family-friendly forum home to users of all ages. Members may not post, or link to, anything that a reasonable person would consider far beyond the bounds of PG-13, including, but not limited to, coarse language, any form of pornography, and derogatory or discriminatory material or content, except in the Roleplay and the Creative Writing sections where you may post or link to PG-16 content in any threads labeled with PG-16 in the title.

What is inappropriate will be determined by moderators on a case-by-case basis.
If you are unsure, feel free to PM a staff member and ask for clarification before you make your post.

 

"YCM is a family-friendly forum home to users of all ages."

No it isn't, it's home to users 13+ as stated in the rule above. This line makes that ambiguous, so omit it.

 

"Members may not post, or link to, anything that a reasonable person would consider far beyond the bounds of PG-13, including, but not limited to, coarse language, any form of pornography, and derogatory or discriminatory material or content, except in the Roleplay and the Creative Writing sections where you may post or link to PG-16 content in any threads labeled with PG-16 in the title."

 

PG-13, PG-16, and PG ratings in general vary by country and the assumption is that we don't have any pre-teen users to begin with. All references to PG ratings in this rule should be omitted. 

 

Instead of broad PG ratings, a focus should be made on specifics. Namely, what is considered inappropriate and deserving of penalty. Pornography was mentioned but nudity wasn't (these are two very different things, though nude sexual organs in any context has never been allowed on YCM and a clarification to this effect should be made.)

 

Given that so many members of the site use course language now (including staff) and that everyone here is over 13, I suggest no rule regarding course language in of itself. We have filters for certain words and rules regarding pornography and harrassment to cover anything objectionable. Words in of themselves are just words, it's the context they're used in that matters.

 

Penalties:

Mention/discussion of sexual acts or organs. = Post edited to omit the mention. (2 warning points, 1-week duration. Add an additional point for subsequent violations within a week's time.) no penalty, given that we're all 13+.

Suggestive picture(s) (Shirtlessness, partial exposure of breasts/buttocks, underwear/bikinis) = 2 warning points, 1-week duration. Add an additional point for subsequent violations within a week's time.) no penalty, given that we're all 13+

 

Sexual harassment of another member (report of a post mentioning/discussing sexual acts or organs that is directed at or mentions a member = 4 warning points, 1-month duration. Add an additional 2 points for subsequent violations with a month's time.)

Explicit nudity (any sexual organ exposed) = Post immediately deleted. 1-month ban (first offense), 6-month ban (second offense), 1-year ban (third offense). Permanent ban.

 

 

No illegal content.

Simply put, it is prohibited for users to post any content that breaks any laws or infringes on copyright. This includes, but is not limited to, information and resources relating to hacking, promotion of terrorism (including cyber-terrorism), and so on. If you are unsure, feel free to PM a member of staff and ask for clarification before you make your post.

Also, it is strictly prohibited to breach privacy of anyone, whether they be a member of YCM or not. You may not post any real-world information, like full names, addresses, etc., and, notably including, logs of IM conversations, private messages (if a PM breaks a rule, PM a moderator directly - do not quote it on the forum), emails or other such information without express permission of all parties involved.

 

This is largely unventured terrain for the most part, which is good. I'd seperate this into two different rules though as they refer to different things, with the second paragraph under the title of "No breaching confidential." as it's not necessarily illegal, especially when it comes to PMs here being posted on the forums and such. 

 

Penalties for promotion of terrorist group = Post deleted as soon as possible. Verbal warning that said group is considered terrorist.

Penalties for promotion of terrorist group after verbal warning that said group is considered a terrorist = Post deleted as soon as possible. 4 warning points, 1-month duration. Add an additional 2 points for subsequent violations within a month's time.)

Penalties for illegal content = Post deleted as soon as possible. 1-month ban (first offense), 6-month ban (second offense), 1-year ban (third offense).

 

Penalties for breach of privacy (as reported that consent was not granted) 

Posting someone's personal information without consent (first name) = Post deleted as soon as possible, 2 warning points, 1-month duration. Add an additional 2 points for subsequent privacy violations within a month's time.)

Posting private conversations here or elsewhere without consent = Post deleted as soon as possible, 4 warning points, 1-month duration. Add an additional 2 points for subsequent violations within a month's time.)

Posting someone's personal information without consent (full name/address) = Post deleted as soon as possible, 1-month ban (first offense), 6-month ban (second offense), 1-year ban (third offense).

 

 

No plagiarism.

"Plagiarism", as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." On YCM, it is strictly prohibited to post anything that is not your own, original work, and claim it as your own.

 

I don't see this being a huge issue on the board outside of the Custom Cards section, where Sakura Haruno has rules addressing image usage and artist complaints. I'm still for specific penalties where it occurs, though.  

 

Penalties for plagiarism, with careful adherance to the definition above:

-For card images, with a verbal suggestion to use a disclaimer stating that card art isn't theirs. (1 warning point, 2-weeks duration with an additional warning point for subsequent violations within 2 weeks).

-For any intellectual property passed as one's own, excluding quotes ofc (Post deleted asap, 4 warning points, 1-month duration with an additional warning point for subsequent violations within 2 weeks).

 

 

No spamming.

Spamming on YCM means posting something that does not contribute to, and may even detract from, the topic of the thread. Short, meaningless posts (e.g. posting "lol" or random images), intentionally going off-topic in a thread, posting twice in a row in a topic within a period of less than 24 hours, flooding any part of the board with threads and/or replies, making threads and/or replies identical or almost identical in nature to ones that already exist, and etc. all count as spam.

If you want to post junk content, use Miscellaneous for that. That's why it exists.
Also, do not advertise other sites or post in spam posts, this also falls under spamming.

Spamming has a default punishment of 3 warning points.

 

Another commonly used rule that happens to be awful. "Spam" was initially an abbreviation for "Stupid/Short, Pointless, Annoying, Messages", but any combination of those adjectives can be subjectively applied to so many posts that it loses meaning. It's an umbrella term that's too broad and has to be broken down into specific violations. Interestingly, there's a (somewhat) specified penalty given for this rule and only this rule. Because of the broad, vague nature of "spamming", bad moderators have historically picked on select members by hitting them with multiple spam warnings simply because they considered their posts stupid.

 

Short posts should be defined as under a specific word count, as is done in the custom cards section with the Advanced Clause.

 

Penalties for short posts:

<10 words: 1 warning point.

1-word posts (like the aformentioned "lol"): 2 warning points.

 

Pointless posts:

No penalties. They wouldn't have posted their "pointless post" if they agreed it could be deemed as such.

 

Annoying posts:

No penalties. They wouldn't have posted their "annoying post" if they agreed it could be deemed as such.

 

 

No flaming or malicious behavior.

Do not purposefully provoke and/or attack another member. If someone has provoked you, settle it in a mature manner or bring it up with the mods. YCM is a place where nobody should feel harassed. Harassing another member of YCM in any way, on or off the forum, will never be tolerated, no matter what you think that person did to "deserve" such treatment.

 

This is a good rule, but needs some specifications as to the procedure taken when a given person feels harassed. I suggest that someone who feels harassed bring it up with both that person and a moderator, and that warnings be given to the person if they persist in the behaviour deemed to be harassment. This would work both ways to prevent abuse, and can be annulled by whoever filed it.

 

Flaming ("You are *derogatory word*", "*user* is *derogatory word*)

-Ad hominem = Post edited to omit flaming, 2 warning points, 1 week's duration with an additional point for each subsequent flaming violation within a week.

 

Harassment (mentioning and/or responding to a user after they've expressed they don't want you to.)

-Mentioning after = 1 warning points, 1 week's duration with an additional point for each subsequent mention within a week.

-Responding after = 2 warning points, 1 week's duration with an additional point for each subsequent response within a week.

 

If a given moderator is excessively warning a given user (beyond stipulated punishments), they should receive warnings in turn for malicious behaviour.

-Power abuse = Action reversed, 2 warning points for 2 weeks duration with an addition warning point for subsequent violations. 

-Three reversals of power abuse within a month = demotion and replacement with someone else.

 

The moderators should know the rules better than anyone.

 

 

No account or feature abuse.

Membership to YCM is a privilege, not a right. It is obviously prohibited for any member to abuse any part of their account or other feature of the site, namely profile information fields, avatars, signatures, the calendar, the Private Message system, the Report system, the Reputation system, the Points system, the Yu-Gi-Oh! Card Maker, and/or of course access to the board itself, and/or utilize these privileges in order to break any rules or mess around and cause trouble.

Members of YCM are not allowed more than one account, unless under extreme circumstances. There is no reason for you to have more, and any "double accounts", and potentially your "main account" will be banned. Same goes for account sharing, so bear this in mind.

 

Penalties:

Abuse of forum features:

Initial verbal warning to address behaviour and why it's considered abusive.

After verbal warning:

2 warning points, 1 week's duration with an addition 2 points for each feature abuse violation.

 

Alternate account (I suggest this term as there can be more than two accounts):

Alternate account(s) immediately deleted. 1-month ban on primary account (first offense), 6-month ban (second offense), 1-year ban (third offense).

 

 

No necrobumping.

Necrobumping refers to posting a thread which no one has posted in for a certain amount of time. This time period varies from section to section, but anything off the first page of a section is most likely too old.

The general standard is usually a month from the last post, but as noted above, some sections have tighter/looser restrictions on what constitutes a necrobump. Please consult the rules for each section (as such restrictions may be listed), or PM one of the moderators in charge of the area.

 

Penalties:

For posting in a thread over a month after the last post: Post deleted, 1 warning point

For tighter restrictions, verbal warning explaining the restrictions in that section followed by 1 warning point per violation.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

This is really, really good, and much of it is what I have campaigned for in the past. I will add more thoughts when I have time to collect them, but for now consider me a fervent supporter of this entire deal.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Thanks for the support, I look forward to the thoughts. :j

[Bellringer Angel]

Not everyone here is over 13 years old... Besides that, I support this rule change.

[Trebuchet MS]

Not bad, actually. Some penalties might have to be modified, but this would be a good baseline from which we can better define the rules.

 

Sexual content is one hell of a grey area, though, and we've settled with some degree of tolerance for suggestiveness in the previous revision. But I'm sure we can reasonably meld that in.

[Maeriberii Haan]

I remember a Section or something similar in another forum I used to frequent, only visible to mods and members on certain Suspended/Banned subgroup where they can try to discuss their sentence further/see whether they can get lighter one. Quite applicable and helps making the process more transparent.

 

Gonna reread this a few times more, although a question for now would be, would it be possible that penalties are done with a simplified, unified system? Having each point of the rule having their own separate penalties would have the potential to make the overall system clunky. Though personally I feel generally the current warning system is not that effective for the most part, but I guess that can be for later.

 

Regarding spam, what about funny image post and off-topic post? Somewhat a greyer area compared to actual short posts, I think.

 

Regarding warning points expiration, I would rather make it so that most of them have longish (1 months or longer) expiration time, but people can appeal to get them removed earlier. Uh, I'm still thinking about the details, but in general I don't see 1 week expiration date as effective as anything other than a temporary halt at times, and I don't feel the points about further violations within the time period will grant increased warns as effective either since the period is short. I think in general subsequent violations of any of these rules should warrant increased penalty no matter when.

 

I think that's all for now I guess.

[Dad]

This will be taken very seriously.  This is extremely valuable input that makes our jobs easier and your time on the forum much more pleasant.  Personally, thank you.  Very well written.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

There was a lot here and from what I can tell I can agree with it but I would like a bit more explaination for:

 

Pointless posts:

No penalties. They wouldn't have posted their "pointless post" if they agreed it could be deemed as such.

 

Annoying posts:

No penalties. They wouldn't have posted their "annoying post" if they agreed it could be deemed as such.

 

Because this seems kind of strange. Sort of a territory that risks having people be able to go "No I didn't break the rules because I didn't feel like I was breaking the rule you say I was"

 

Plus that's assuming people would not have posted the "spam" if they thought it were spam which is decidedly untrue in many cases.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Thank you for your input everyone!

 

I remember a Section or something similar in another forum I used to frequent, only visible to mods and members on certain Suspended/Banned subgroup where they can try to discuss their sentence further/see whether they can get lighter one. Quite applicable and helps making the process more transparent.

 

Gonna reread this a few times more, although a question for now would be, would it be possible that penalties are done with a simplified, unified system? Having each point of the rule having their own separate penalties would have the potential to make the overall system clunky. Though personally I feel generally the current warning system is not that effective for the most part, but I guess that can be for later.

 

Regarding spam, what about funny image post and off-topic post? Somewhat a greyer area compared to actual short posts, I think.

 

Regarding warning points expiration, I would rather make it so that most of them have longish (1 months or longer) expiration time, but people can appeal to get them removed earlier. Uh, I'm still thinking about the details, but in general I don't see 1 week expiration date as effective as anything other than a temporary halt at times, and I don't feel the points about further violations within the time period will grant increased warns as effective either since the period is short. I think in general subsequent violations of any of these rules should warrant increased penalty no matter when.

 

I think that's all for now I guess.

 

You raise some good points. With regards to subsequent violations, my concern with increasing the penalty no matter when is that it punishes members for activity, where someone who posts less wouldn't be as likely to have repeat offenses simply due to a smaller sample size. Raising those expiration dates seems fair though.

 

For responses that are actually nothing but a picture (outside of misc), I'd consider it a 0-word post or the same as a 1-word post for the purposes of penalties (perhaps an exception for pictures with captions of over 10 words could be made or perhaps they should be discounted). Off-topic posts I wouldn't imagine to be a super high priority given that they don't hurt anyone and how a post relates to the topic can be misinterpreted, such as with in-jokes, obscure references, and the like.

 

 

I remember a Section or something similar in another forum I used to frequent, only visible to mods and members on certain Suspended/Banned subgroup where they can try to discuss their sentence further/see whether they can get lighter one. Quite applicable and helps making the process more transparent.

 

This in particular would be super cool. :)

 

Because this seems kind of strange. Sort of a territory that risks having people be able to go "No I didn't break the rules because I didn't feel like I was breaking the rule you say I was"

 

The problem with such rules is that they're entirely a matter of opinion. There's no defence to "I feel your post was stupid +X Warning Points" and no way to learn from such warnings or necessarily avoid them by posting with sincerity and good intent while following all other rules. Nothing is accomplished through such penalties.

 

 

Not everyone here is over 13 years old... Besides that, I support this rule change.

 

This rule was already in place due to liability issues involved in people under the age of 13 using the forums. Those people who are here and are under 13 years old shouldn't be using the forums, and if they are then those users have to wait until they *are* 13.

[Maeriberii Haan]

It's a fair point regarding the potential of the progressing penalty affect activity. However, isn't it best if the rules are made with the assumption that the general populace that are aware of it would not break it, instead of with the assumption that the average member would break them at least once in their forum life? For lighter offenses perhaps just a verbal warning/0-point warning would possibly serve as the first reminder regarding the rules, and beyond that they would hopefully not repeat the same offense.

 

Of course, yeah, it does become potentially concerning regarding someone that has accumulated enough of the progression to automatically warrant larger amount of warnings for each subsequent offense.

 

Raising expiration date while also making it the base of reference for repeat offense seems like a nice compromise. Though this preferably doesn't apply to harsher offenses.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Ok, yeah, agreed on all points, with a simple exception.

 

Pornography or illegal content shouldn't take three instances to become a one year ban. Both should absolutely be permabans on the first instance, barring some unforeseen circumstance.

 

NOTE: by unforeseen circumstance, I mean "user did not realize content was illegal" not "they really want to come back"

[Susie]

With suggestiveness banning shirtless and bikini pics is too hard. It was already agreed on that shirtless males and bikinis that werent basically just a rubber band were okay and I see no reason to completely knock that stuff off when were all 13 and over. Also with partial exposure I think it should be changed to absurd exposure, just partial in general is not bad by any means to a 13+ crowd. Like I mean there should be nothing wrong with posting Rouge the Bat but if she had nothing but pieces of paper covering her nipples then yeah thats a problem. Exposure to butts and underwear in a sexual connotation is definitely something that I can get behind going away.

 

Also it should be mentioned that the rule of mentioning/discussing sex or sexual organs is less strict on humor, nothing wrong with people making dick jokes and mentioning a weird outlandish fetish with a funny name during a joke which are things that people do here without anyone batting an eye at.

 

Thats pretty much all that I can comment on from this.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Right now, we're working under a policy that any instance of adult pornography is an automatic ban. Out of fairness, the last couple of instances that we have punished users for posting pornography resulted in permabans for the members in question.

 

I will also note that we have opened a discussion amongst ourselves in the mod forum and reading over the recommendations brought up in this thread. As Dad mentioned, the suggestions you guys make will help us to devise a new rulebook that can adequately address certain issues, and not be ambiguously worded. We'll keep you updated on any progress as it goes along.

 

[spoiler=Age limit]

As for the age limit thing, the statements concerning nationality and the "don't tell" policy can be removed. We need to double check on the specifics of COPPA; at the time that rule was added, the assumption was that it also applies to users outside this country if the site in question is hosted in the US (which IP.Boards is).

 

Again, most, if not all of you, are over the age of 13, so you should not need to worry, but it needs to be made clear. We have found members who were underage and dealt with them accordingly, however that number is very low.

 

 

 

[spoiler=Image usage]

Regarding the image usage policy in CC, I don't have specific penalties in place since there is very little complaints from artists. I've only seen one case of this within my entire modship, and that was the artist posting in a very old thread. I'm not pedantic about how you credit artists, but simply linking to where you found the picture (if recent) or if you cannot remember, crediting the artist themselves beneath the card is fine. We just ask that if you do get images from deviantArt, just make sure you're permitted to use them (either they have a disclaimer that says you can, or expressly ask permission).

 

To be honest, I don't see it as a warnable offense, but you all should do it, so other members can find them if necessary and yeah, minimize copyright claims if possible.

 

We do have an artist complaint form if there are future cases of ripped artwork (prove that you're the creator of the work [either link to dA/Pixiv/wherever or provide GIMP/PSD, scanned copies of works, link to the posts that use your works, confirm if you gave them permission or not and verify that what you've told us is truthful). The first part of the "evidence" is similar to what Showcase has for suspected rip cases; prove that it's indeed your work. Again though, I've only seen one instance of an artist complaint during my two years on the job.

 

----

Showcase has its own penalties for ripping (either members use each other works without permission, or borrowing from people off this site).

 

 

[The Nyx Avatar]

With suggestiveness banning shirtless and bikini pics is too hard. It was already agreed on that shirtless males and bikinis that werent basically just a rubber band were okay and I see no reason to completely knock that stuff off when were all 13 and over. Also with partial exposure I think it should be changed to absurd exposure, just partial in general is not bad by any means to a 13+ crowd. Like I mean there should be nothing wrong with posting Rouge the Bat but if she had nothing but pieces of paper covering her nipples then yeah thats a problem. Exposure to butts and underwear in a sexual connotation is definitely something that I can get behind going away.

 

Also it should be mentioned that the rule of mentioning/discussing sex or sexual organs is less strict on humor, nothing wrong with people making dick jokes and mentioning a weird outlandish fetish with a funny name during a joke which are things that people do here without anyone batting an eye at.

 

Thats pretty much all that I can comment on from this.

This right here I wholeheartedly agree with. Sure, there's sexual acts; that one makes sense. But shirtless and bikinis? This was already brought up in the previous update, and I say it's already fine how it is now. It does not need any further restrictions than it already has.

 

[spoiler=Image usage]

Regarding the image usage policy in CC, I don't have specific penalties in place since there is very little complaints from artists. I've only seen one case of this within my entire modship, and that was the artist posting in a very old thread. I'm not pedantic about how you credit artists, but simply linking to where you found the picture (if recent) or if you cannot remember, crediting the artist themselves beneath the card is fine. We just ask that if you do get images from deviantArt, just make sure you're permitted to use them (either they have a disclaimer that says you can, or expressly ask permission).

 

To be honest, I don't see it as a warnable offense, but you all should do it, so other members can find them if necessary and yeah, minimize copyright claims if possible.

 

We do have an artist complaint form if there are future cases of ripped artwork (prove that you're the creator of the work [either link to dA/Pixiv/wherever or provide GIMP/PSD, scanned copies of works, link to the posts that use your works, confirm if you gave them permission or not and verify that what you've told us is truthful). The first part of the "evidence" is similar to what Showcase has for suspected rip cases; prove that it's indeed your work. Again though, I've only seen one instance of an artist complaint during my two years on the job.

 

----

Showcase has its own penalties for ripping (either members use each other works without permission, or borrowing from people off this site).

 

 

More or less agree. Using an image and giving credit should be something preferred as opposed to something enforced. You shouldn't receive Warning Points just because you didn't include the source of the image you used for your card(s).

[Blake]

Wow, posting this in all black, way to infringe on my rights as a moderator with access to more skins than you, fuckboi.

 

In all seriousness, though, I'll be going over these shortly.

[Blake]

I post this thread with the intent of creating an open discussion, so while I am going to highlight specific rules that I take issue with, feel free to discuss any part of the current rules and contribute any ideas you might have to improve them.

 

This subject has always been important to me because while I don't ever wish to become a moderator I believe an environment in which we can co-exist without nasty surprises and dramatics, and that for this to happen input is required from moderators and members alike in drafting rules. 

 

Ideally, we'd have newly-revised rules, no retroactive punishments based on posts before they take effect, and an understanding between staff and members moving forward so the rules aren't vague as they are and punishments don't blindside people and appear ambiguous. 

All sounds good, though I don't believe I know of any retroactive warns? At least, not nowadays.

 

Still wrong to do them, of course.

 

This is a very old rule that has been a part of YCM for as long as I can remember. It is the first rule mentioned first both the current draft of the rules and its predecessors as it is to a large extent the basis and foundation for all subsequent rules and punishments.

 

In practice, this rule is neither realistic nor sustainable. The staff's unity depends on their shared sense of purpose based on their observations of the active member base that they have always been a small portion of on this site. Any unorthodox action taken by a staff member demands the scrutiny of all other moderators, and so any invokation of "final say" is then subject to the "final say" of the rest of the staff. This rule fails to take into account the staff's capacity for self-reflection and critical thinking that takes its root in the staff's purpose. Any staff member who believes the staff's purpose is to antagonize the member base will not last long. The staff has to have a unified understanding that they exist to serve the member base and admit that the members have final say (consent of the governed), or they will fall upon eachother. I've seen it happen time and time again on this site. This rule is as much of a problem for the staff as it is to the member base, and because it's problematic in general it should be discarded. 

While I don't disagree with you, I wholeheartedly that's not the intent of the rule. I think it's more meant to say that things have to happen, especially given that the staff does try to get member input.

 

Maybe that's not the intent, and it certainly does need a rewording if nothing else, but I don't think it's the "I'm the parent and I'm right" approach.

 

This was in Frunk's previous edition of the rules but I address it as it's still relevant. The staff should be vigilant in anticipating breaches and consistent and unbiased in their application of punishments as possible. If something that isn't covered in the rules comes up, the rules should be amended.

This is idealistic.

 

The issue with this, which really showed up in regards to the rules about sexual content, is how hard it is to police that. Being super specific can't really happen, and lots of gray areas do exist.

 

But that should be a given. Frunk's portion is unneeded.

 

A sub-section of the above rule. The reason that complaining about it in public (especially in cases of "heightened severity") is such a problem is simply the potential for such complaints to divide the staff and result in internal conflicts and demotions. That is the reason it *can* result in the harshest possible punishments (permanent/IP ban), though members do complain in public fairly regularly and such harsh punishments aren't assessed.

 

Members inevitably complain in public where complaints in public are earned by rogue moderators, and it's up the staff to reassess their role and sort things out internally when one of their own oversteps their bounds. This further emphasizes how the "staff has final say" rule prevents the staff from doing their job properly. I suggest that a section be made for such disputes, with permissions for banned members to post in if possible. 

I honestly had no idea the rules about that were so severe... Or even there.

 

I believe this is more due to complaints about member bans, though. Which have been known to get out of hand.

 

I think that the idea for either a thread for this OR section for just banned members to appeal makes more sense with this. Maybe both, a section for moderator conduct and setion for bans. 

 

Suggested omissions:

"(It does not matter if you live in the United States or elsewhere)": If it "does not matter", there's no point in mentioning it and the rule being applied regardless of nationality is understood.

 

"It is extremely difficult to know if you are underage, so if you are, either stick to using the cardmaker or DO NOT blurt out your actual age in the forum or on your profile.": This statement in of itself makes the staff appear culpable, as though it's okay for pre-teens to use the forums so long as they don't "blurt out their age". If they do, the punishment is clear. If they don't, it isn't the staff's responsibility to magically detect them. This is a "don't ask don't tell" policy when it's up to the staff to make it clear that pre-teens aren't allowed to use the forums.

 first part really doesn't matter so sure

 

Fair point about ages. We already have a disclaimer when signing up, waiving our fault unless proven otherwise, so it's redundant, and the wording is poor.

 

"YCM is a family-friendly forum home to users of all ages."

No it isn't, it's home to users 13+ as stated in the rule above. This line makes that ambiguous, so omit it.

 

"Members may not post, or link to, anything that a reasonable person would consider far beyond the bounds of PG-13, including, but not limited to, coarse language, any form of pornography, and derogatory or discriminatory material or content, except in the Roleplay and the Creative Writing sections where you may post or link to PG-16 content in any threads labeled with PG-16 in the title."

 

PG-13, PG-16, and PG ratings in general vary by country and the assumption is that we don't have any pre-teen users to begin with. All references to PG ratings in this rule should be omitted. 

 

Instead of broad PG ratings, a focus should be made on specifics. Namely, what is considered inappropriate and deserving of penalty. Pornography was mentioned but nudity wasn't (these are two very different things, though nude sexual organs in any context has never been allowed on YCM and a clarification to this effect should be made.)

 

Given that so many members of the site use course language now (including staff) and that everyone here is over 13, I suggest no rule regarding course language in of itself. We have filters for certain words and rules regarding pornography and harrassment to cover anything objectionable. Words in of themselves are just words, it's the context they're used in that matters.

 

Penalties:

Mention/discussion of sexual acts or organs. = Post edited to omit the mention. (2 warning points, 1-week duration. Add an additional point for subsequent violations within a week's time.)

Sexual harassment of another member (report of a post mentioning/discussing sexual acts or organs that is directed at or mentions a member = 4 warning points, 1-month duration. Add an additional 2 points for subsequent violations with a month's time.)

Suggestive picture(s) (Shirtlessness, partial exposure of breasts/buttocks, underwear/bikinis) = 2 warning points, 1-week duration. Add an additional point for subsequent violations within a week's time.)  

Explicit nudity (any sexual organ exposed) = Post immediately deleted. 1-month ban (first offense), 6-month ban (second offense), 1-year ban (third offense).

I actually disagree here.

 

While discussion of sexual acts should be frowned upon, simply saying "dick", "boobs", and so on shouldn't be an issue.

 

Discussion of organs can also be maturely done, as topics of gender identity and the like, whether or not you subscribe to it, or medical discussions can easily bring them up. It's a matter of context, which goes back to my point about nailing everything down.

 

Sexual Harassment is a far worse issue than that. A member was banned for soliciting sex not long ago.

 

Shirtlessness and such are nothing new to 13+ year olds.

 

Explicit nudity is very clearly against the rules.

 

These suggestions seem too heavy on the low end and too harsh on the high end.

 

This is largely unventured terrain for the most part, which is good. I'd seperate this into two different rules though as they refer to different things, with the second paragraph under the title of "No breaching confidential." as it's not necessarily illegal, especially when it comes to PMs here being posted on the forums and such. 

 

Penalties for promotion of terrorist group = Post deleted as soon as possible. Verbal warning that said group is considered terrorist.

Penalties for promotion of terrorist group after verbal warning that said group is considered a terrorist = Post deleted as soon as possible. 4 warning points, 1-month duration. Add an additional 2 points for subsequent violations within a month's time.)

Penalties for illegal content = Post deleted as soon as possible. 1-month ban (first offense), 6-month ban (second offense), 1-year ban (third offense).

 

Penalties for breach of privacy (as reported that consent was not granted) 

Posting someone's personal information without consent (first name) = Post deleted as soon as possible, 2 warning points, 1-month duration. Add an additional 2 points for subsequent privacy violations within a month's time.)

Posting private conversations here or elsewhere without consent = Post deleted as soon as possible, 4 warning points, 1-month duration. Add an additional 2 points for subsequent violations within a month's time.)

Posting someone's personal information without consent (full name/address) = Post deleted as soon as possible, 1-month ban (first offense), 6-month ban (second offense), 1-year ban (third offense).

Again, a case of me mostly agreeing.

 

But I don't agree that a single instance of illegal content, without covering what it is, works. Is pirating a song or ROM equivalent to running a massive scam? Or posting porn (technically not the same, but)?

 

And the latter half again seems out of line. Using someone's first name is hardly a major offense, needing only to be told "pls don't do that again", and posting full information is much more heinous than suggested.

 

As for private conversations, pictures of skype convos are regularly posted. So long as it's not done with malicious intent, there's no real issue.

 

I don't see this being a huge issue on the board outside of the Custom Cards section, where Sakura Haruno has rules addressing image usage and artist complaints. I'm still for specific penalties where it occurs, though.  

 

Penalties for plagiarism, with careful adherance to the definition above:

-For card images, with a verbal suggestion to use a disclaimer stating that card art isn't theirs. (1 warning point, 2-weeks duration with an additional warning point for subsequent violations within 2 weeks).

-For any intellectual property passed as one's own, excluding quotes ofc (Post deleted asap, 4 warning points, 1-month duration with an additional warning point for subsequent violations within 2 weeks).

 I really think this is just unneccesary, and I always have.

 

You're not getting any value out of the art you're using, so there shouldn't be an issue. If an artist wants it removed, they can request such. Otherwise, it's a non-issue, as no one is making money off of the work of others. 

 

Another commonly used rule that happens to be awful. "Spam" was initially an abbreviation for "Stupid/Short, Pointless, Annoying, Messages", but any combination of those adjectives can be subjectively applied to so many posts that it loses meaning. It's an umbrella term that's too broad and has to be broken down into specific violations. Interestingly, there's a (somewhat) specified penalty given for this rule and only this rule. Because of the broad, vague nature of "spamming", bad moderators have historically picked on select members by hitting them with multiple spam warnings simply because they considered their posts stupid.

 

Short posts should be defined as under a specific word count, as is done in the custom cards section with the Advanced Clause.

 

Penalties for short posts:

1-word posts (like the aformentioned "lol"): 2 warning points.

 

Pointless posts:

No penalties. They wouldn't have posted their "pointless post" if they agreed it could be deemed as such.

 

Annoying posts:

No penalties. They wouldn't have posted their "annoying post" if they agreed it could be deemed as such.

I disagree about removing these penalties/instituting punishment for posts just due to being a low amount of words.

 

While a 1-2 word post is an obvious issue, 10 words can easily be enough to cover a post, depending on the section. 

 

Pointless posts and annoying posts (not quite sure why these are seperated, unless I'm missing something?) are also not set in stone.

 

There are/have been around 5-10 members in the past year who are notorious for doing nothing moe than regurgitating information in a thread without adding anything. These members have been looked at, and it has been deemed problematic.

 

Is it worth slamming them with warns constantly? No, but the posts still take away from the forum when they add nothing to discussion.

 

The intent of a posted message means nothing, just as the intent of a design (Card, GFX, etc.) means nothing, if the execution does not match the intent.

 

This is a good rule, but needs some specifications as to the procedure taken when a given person feels harassed. I suggest that someone who feels harassed bring it up with both that person and a moderator, and that warnings be given to the person if they persist in the behaviour deemed to be harassment. This would work both ways to prevent abuse, and can be annulled by whoever filed it.

 

Flaming ("You are *derogatory word*", "*user* is *derogatory word*)

-Ad hominem = Post edited to omit flaming, 2 warning points, 1 week's duration with an additional point for each subsequent flaming violation within a week.

 

Harassment (mentioning and/or responding to a user after they've expressed they don't want you to.)

-Mentioning after = 1 warning points, 1 week's duration with an additional point for each subsequent mention within a week.

-Responding after = 2 warning points, 1 week's duration with an additional point for each subsequent response within a week.

 

If a given moderator is excessively warning a given user (beyond stipulated punishments), they should receive warnings in turn for malicious behaviour.

-Power abuse = Action reversed, 2 warning points for 2 weeks duration with an addition warning point for subsequent violations. 

-Three reversals of power abuse within a month = demotion and replacement with someone else.

 

The moderators should know the rules better than anyone.

Again, this is too black and white. Situations come up where the lines are blurred, and minor amounts of this should not be treated as a major crime.

 

People are going to disagree and have spats, they may even get heated and say things they don't mean. But it doesn't mean that calling someone dumb is immediately worthy of a warn. That's just not realistic.

 

I understand the intent, but you cannot makes things black and white, as there are far too many variables in a given situation.

 

As for harassment... way too vague. This is a forum. We have a blocking function for "restraining orders", it's not on the mods to police every "he's touching meee" that pops up.

 

Saying "don't respond to me" in a thread is childish, at best, and doing so in a PM/over status is handled by blocking or simply ignoring them. If they become malicious, it's obvious they deserve to be reported.

 

The last one is addressed in the mod forum when it comes up. While warns may be a good idea, they're largely pointless to do to moderators. We definitely crack down on excessive warns/large amounts of warns... Well, now we do, at least.

 

Penalties:

Abuse of forum features:

Initial verbal warning to address behaviour and why it's considered abusive.

After verbal warning:

2 warning points, 1 week's duration with an addition 2 points for each feature abuse violation.

 

Alternate account (I suggest this term as there can be more than two accounts):

Alternate account(s) immediately deleted. 1-month ban on primary account (first offense), 6-month ban (second offense), 1-year ban (third offense).

There's a certain member who repeatedly ignored the feature abuse, even with points. 1 point warn and they ignore it, even as they're warned more and more for their abuse, in varying amounts. Even with explanations.

 

Alt accounts, fair enough.

 

Penalties:

For posting in a thread over a month after the last post: Post deleted, 1 warning point

For tighter restrictions, verbal warning explaining the restrictions in that section followed by 1 warning point per violation

Fair enough.

 

To summarize...

 

A lot of the warns that happen have preprogrammed amounts, and it's rare that they're actually INCREASED. If anything, we reduce them based on situations, unless it's an example of multiple things happening in succession.

 

You also have to understand how difficult it is to make everything black and white. The staff does have lives beyond this non-paid position, and there are far too many variables for us to iron out. The sexual content rule never ended up being hammered out, because there are too many examples of things that could easily go wrong.

 

The one I commonly used where the dancing tigers from Zootopia. Without context, they seem almost like they're furry porn, or close to it, but context reveals they're from a PG movie. Are we to warn posting stuff from a PG Disney Movie?

 

However, I do not want you to be discouraged. Even if I disagree with your points, I appreciate the effort and time put into this, and differing viewpoints are helpful towards improvement.

 

Many of the things you've suggested are, at the very least, food for thought. Some are more. And that is valuable.

 

-----

 

With suggestiveness banning shirtless and bikini pics is too hard. It was already agreed on that shirtless males and bikinis that werent basically just a rubber band were okay and I see no reason to completely knock that stuff off when were all 13 and over. Also with partial exposure I think it should be changed to absurd exposure, just partial in general is not bad by any means to a 13+ crowd. Like I mean there should be nothing wrong with posting Rouge the Bat but if she had nothing but pieces of paper covering her nipples then yeah thats a problem. Exposure to butts and underwear in a sexual connotation is definitely something that I can get behind going away.

 

Also it should be mentioned that the rule of mentioning/discussing sex or sexual organs is less strict on humor, nothing wrong with people making dick jokes and mentioning a weird outlandish fetish with a funny name during a joke which are things that people do here without anyone batting an eye at.

 

Thats pretty much all that I can comment on from this.

I mostly agree, but a large part of the issue with sexual content was due to members taking it too far.

 

Like that "post and I'll give you a fetish thread"... Where a 17 year-old minor was discussing such, some of which were absolutely disgusting or disturbing, with members both far younger than him (13) and older than him (23+), which could have gotten not just himself but OTHERS in trouble.

 

We could have an R-Rated section, but that goes back to the difficulty of policing age on the site, and it's honestly too much trouble without requiring too much RL information.

 

So while jokes are generally going to be fine, please do tread carefully with outlandish fetishes and the like.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

about harassment

Though blocking is an option, it really does not solve an issue. Multiple members are insulting to most everyone, and blocking them risks missing posts that may be important to a discussion. That said, in debates at least, Dad has cracked down on ad hominem, taking a more active moderating seat so... good on him, I guess.

 

Nor to mention that there is a certain stigma attached to blocking users who bother you, and their statuses are still visible. Point being, aiming for people to behave amicably toward each other through more solid rules is an all around better solution. Yes, it is a grey area, but exaggerating the degree to which simply allows for favoritism.

[Blake]

Though blocking is an option, it really does not solve an issue. Multiple members are insulting to most everyone, and blocking them risks missing posts that may be important to a discussion. That said, in debates at least, Dad has cracked down on ad hominem, taking a more active moderating seat so... good on him, I guess.

 

Nor to mention that there is a certain stigma attached to blocking users who bother you, and their statuses are still visible. Point being, aiming for people to behave amicably toward each other through more solid rules is an all around better solution. Yes, it is a grey area, but exaggerating the degree to which simply allows for favoritism.

I realize it's not a perfect solution, but slamming people for simply replying to someone who said "don't talk to me" is a bit ridiculous, and that's why I brought up the blocking function. Additionally, you can unhide posts by a member you have blocked, one at a time.

 

True harassment would be tackled appropriately, as seen in the recent banning, post locking, and warning of three certain members. I merely wish to point out that the former is solved by blocking or simply dealing with it, and is not a warnable offense.

[Susie]

 I mostly agree, but a large part of the issue with sexual content was due to members taking it too far.

 

Like that "post and I'll give you a fetish thread"... Where a 17 year-old minor was discussing such, some of which were absolutely disgusting or disturbing, with members both far younger than him (13) and older than him (23+), which could have gotten not just himself but OTHERS in trouble.

 

We could have an R-Rated section, but that goes back to the difficulty of policing age on the site, and it's honestly too much trouble without requiring too much RL information.

 

So while jokes are generally going to be fine, please do tread carefully with outlandish fetishes and the like.

Making an entire thread dedicated to talking about disturbing and fucked up sexual kinks is too far but im talking more like a one off joke in a status reply or something thats incredibly vague.

 

An R-Rated section wouldnt be a bad idea but im completely indifferent on whether we have one or not. If it happens that somebody is lying about their age then that isnt at the fault of the site so long as you do something when its found out that somebody underage is posting in the adult section.

[Blake]

Making an entire thread dedicated to talking about disturbing and funked up sexual kinks is too far but im talking more like a one off joke in a status reply or something thats incredibly vague.

 

An R-Rated section wouldnt be a bad idea but im completely indifferent on whether we have one or not. If it happens that somebody is lying about their age then that isnt at the fault of the site so long as you do something when its found out that somebody underage is posting in the adult section.

I know, I just want to stress caution. It can go south quickly, if one isn't careful.

 

The problem is that interacting with a minor in that capacity is a crime, regardless of your knowledge of their age. Exposing yourself to a minor or seeing them is pedophilia/child pornography, by the definitions of the law, and is to be avoided at all costs.

 

A minor ignoring the legally binding age waiver on a porn site is on THEM, interaction with others is not.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

I made my position on this stuff very clear in the past, when it was relevant to the discord server. Sexually or otherwise explicit content should not be on the forum or anything directly connected to it. If you want to talk about that stuff, that's fine, but there is no place for it here and creating such a place completely ignores the point.

[Susie]

I know, I just want to stress caution. It can go south quickly, if one isn't careful.

 

The problem is that interacting with a minor in that capacity is a crime, regardless of your knowledge of their age. Exposing yourself to a minor or seeing them is pedophilia/child pornography, by the definitions of the law, and is to be avoided at all costs.

 

A minor ignoring the legally binding age waiver on a porn site is on THEM, interaction with others is not.

Then in that case maybe make a waiver type thing or agreement thing to the R-Rated section. I dunno, laws can be stupid at times.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Thanks everyone for keeping it real and sorry for my negligence of this thread the past few days, my access to computers and such has been rather limited the past few days, but I agree that no penalties for semi-nudes/discussion of sexuality and stricter penalties for nudes (displaying sexual organs) makes sense. Will try to address other things and update the thread accordingly from library computers.  

 

Alright, on to addressing other things as promised. Proposed rules with regards to inappropriate content have been updated.

 

Wow, posting this in all black, way to infringe on my rights as a moderator with access to more skins than you, fuckboi.

 

In all seriousness, though, I'll be going over these shortly.

 

My original post being all black was a fix to font formatting inconsistencies involved in responding to quoted posts, and also because the default font color is black. I assure you it had nothing to do with your stylistic preferences.

 

I know you're joking, but there are so many issues involved with this short, initial (quoted) post of yours that I can neither laugh with you nor can I assume you're approaching this with much thought or sincerity, which *does* discourage me.

 

1) You flamed me directly, a clear violation of the rules that you should be warned for, with or without these proposed revisions. In my opinion it's the easiest concrete rule to adhere to besides double-posting.

2) You then proceeded to double-post.

3) You're a moderator, which means not only that you're supposed to be the one enforcing these rules, but you should have a sense of why they are to be enforced that should prevent you from *blatantly breaking them yourself*.

4) The rules are the very focus of this thread. If you can't respect them here where they're in the spotlight, where can you reasonably be expected to respect them? If you can't respect them, how can you reasonably be expected to enforce them fairly?

5) Your "rights as a moderator" are one and the same as our rights as members. I'd hope that's part of the joke, but as you've given other reasons to believe you're above the rules, I want to make this abundantly clear.

 

I'd prefer not to take such a humourless tack, but I've done so for the same reason that I wouldn't want moderators to spare posts simply on the basis of being jocular and hope you can appreciate that.

 

 

Again, this is too black and white. Situations come up where the lines are blurred, and minor amounts of this should not be treated as a major crime.

 

It's either against the rules or it isn't. If it seems like something that's against the spirit of the rules but isn't against the actual rules, then there shouldn't be a punishment and the rules can be revised again to prevent that behaviour in future. Until then, it is very much as simple as punishing violations of the rules and not punishing non-violations of the rules. 

 

 

The one I commonly used where the dancing tigers from Zootopia. Without context, they seem almost like they're furry porn, or close to it, but context reveals they're from a PG movie. Are we to warn posting stuff from a PG Disney Movie?

 

Does the instance display explicit sexual organs or not? PG ratings aren't unanimous and Disney isn't necessarily wholesome.

 

 

There's a certain member who repeatedly ignored the feature abuse, even with points. 1 point warn and they ignore it, even as they're warned more and more for their abuse, in varying amounts. Even with explanations.

 

Then that certain member's warning points would accumulate with each feature abuse violation after the explanation as to why it's considered as such. What's the problem?

 

 

The staff does have lives beyond this non-paid position, and there are far too many variables for us to iron out. The sexual content rule never ended up being hammered out, because there are too many examples of things that could easily go wrong.

 

Such examples either exist and can be addressed now or we can't fathom them and they can be addressed through further revisions later. It's simply a matter of coming to agreement on where the site stands on such issues.

 

 

Though blocking is an option, it really does not solve an issue.

 

This is where I stand too, as blocking penalizes only the person who feels harassed.

 

 

I disagree about removing these penalties/instituting punishment for posts just due to being a low amount of words.
 
While a 1-2 word post is an obvious issue, 10 words can easily be enough to cover a post, depending on the section.

 

Since we can agree that extreme brevity is in of itself a problem, would <5 words for a penalty make sense, or 1-2 word posts alone?

 

As for harassment... way too vague. This is a forum. We have a blocking function for "restraining orders", it's not on the mods to police every "he's touching meee" that pops up.
 

Saying "don't respond to me" in a thread is childish, at best, and doing so in a PM/over status is handled by blocking or simply ignoring them. If they become malicious, it's obvious they deserve to be reported.

 

My proposal regarding harassment may be faulty elsewhere, but not for vagueness, as it is in every way more specific than the current rules on harassment. I can't imagine "he's touching meee" pops up often, and where it does I think it makes sense to have clearly defined protocol to prevent it if we're to call YCM "a place where nobody should feel harassed." I don't feel as though malice in of itself is detectable and unequivocally disagree with penalties issued simply for "malicious intent" where it may or may not exist.

 

 

Raising expiration date while also making it the base of reference for repeat offense seems like a nice compromise. Though this preferably doesn't apply to harsher offenses.

 

Right. If posts explicitly displaying sexual organs are to be penalized with permanent bans instantly (as appears to have happened with Thar), then so long as that's stipulated it is fair. I believe it was with the understanding that he would be banned permanently that he did it, and he's since appealed to come back.

 

 

True harassment would be tackled appropriately, as seen in the recent banning, post locking, and warning of three certain members.

 

This is not appropriate. This is faulty moderating, taking people by surprise and punishing people after the fact. This is why we need a definition for "true harassment" and specific consequences to address it.