Resolution 06-2017-01 concerning the application and enforcement of rules in the General section

[Wahrheit]

WHEREAS, posting on YCM has seen a general downturn in the years since The Rules were enacted, and

 

WHEREAS, General specifically sees less traffic than in years past due to the expansion of non-Yu-Gi-Oh content sections, e.g. Video Games, Music, etc., where these threads were previously posted in General, and

 

WHEREAS, General tends to abide by looser standards than other sections on the whole, and

 

WHEREAS, "necrobumping" on forums generally has tended to refer to the unnecessary bumping of threads with irrelevant information, especially question threads where answers have been given, and

 

WHEREAS, "necrobumping" is less applicable as a concept to a section with broader discussion, and

 

WHEREAS, "necrobumping" can still be applied as necessary to posts with a clearly irrelevant character, and

 

WHEREAS, plenty of threads in General remain timely, interesting, or valuable despite the lapses of posting within such threads, and

 

WHEREAS, arbitrary policies may reduce user activity further, and

 

WHEREAS, moderation aims to improve the user experience and curb malicious activity rather than to curb activity generally, and

 

WHEREAS, the forbearance of overmoderation in situations lacking conflict tends to improve the site generally: Now, therefore,

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the rules for the General section of the Yugioh Card Maker Forum be amended to allow the discretion of the moderators in forbearing from the enforcement of rules where necessary, proper, or for the public interest; and

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the forbearance of the moderators be exercised only where they see fit and not as a limitation of their abilities to moderate where necessary, proper, or for the public interest; and

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the moderators take all due care in evaluating the legitimacy and necessity of enforcing alleged violations of rules in reports, with the full faith and credit they are given.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Here's a tip. Want to be taken seriously and get a point across?

Use plain English. What you wrote isn't all that complicated but it certainly comes off as not serious or possibly arrogant to word it in such a way.

 

Just say what you are suggesting clearly otherwise it sorta sounds like a joke and is trickier to actually discuss.

 

Also for the record I don't get the timing given that Yui literally mentioned he'd be looking over the rules and decided not to enforce the rules that currently stand for necrobumping because of his own judgement.

[Yui]

I mean. I'd considered loosening up the standards for necrobumping in General a bit, upping the time threshold from one month to two, but then I thought, "A month should be plenty of time for a quiet thread to get some life in it again, right?" Even if I did that though, the cooking thread had been quiet for four whole months, and the absolute longest I was thinking of loosening it to was three months (which is a whole lotta time). I could always revise it to something like "As long as your post is relevant, there isn't really a time limit before a bump becomes a necrobump", but I feel like that may have consequences I'm not taking into consideration, and pushing it above three months would more or less have the same effect.

 

Now, if there's a whole lotta people who agree I should make the above revisions, I'm totally open to hearing about it and why, and I may or may not be on the fence between one or two months for a time threshold again what with General's activity level (something I hadn't considered as deeply as I should have), but short of those two possibilities I'd rather not change something so soon after enforcing and clarifying on it.

 

Here's a tip. Want to be taken seriously and get a point across?

Use plain English. What you wrote isn't all that complicated but it certainly comes off as not serious or possibly arrogant to word it in such a way.

 

Just say what you are suggesting clearly.

 

Also for the record I don't get the timing given that Yui literally mentioned he'd be looking over the rules and decided not to enforce the rules that currently stand for necrobumping because of his own judgement.

To be fair I did enforce them. Just with only a verbal warning was all. That's like the lightest way I could possibly enforce a rule, but still.

[Wahrheit]

Here's a tip. Want to be taken seriously and get a point across?

Use plain English. What you wrote isn't all that complicated but it certainly comes off as not serious or possibly arrogant to word it in such a way.

 

Just say what you are suggesting clearly otherwise it sorta sounds like a joke and is trickier to actually discuss.

 

Also for the record I don't get the timing given that Yui literally mentioned he'd be looking over the rules and decided not to enforce the rules that currently stand for necrobumping because of his own judgement.

I wrote it as a resolution so it would get taken more seriously. I don't appreciate being mocked. Why be hostile? I put a lot of effort into writing this.

I mean. I'd considered loosening up the standards for necrobumping in General a bit, upping the time threshold from one month to two, but then I thought, "A month should be plenty of time for a quiet thread to get some life in it again, right?" Even if I did that though, the cooking thread had been quiet for four whole months, and the absolute longest I was thinking of loosening it to was three months (which is a whole lotta time). I could always revise it to something like "As long as your post is relevant, there isn't really a time limit before a bump becomes a necrobump", but I feel like that may have consequences I'm not taking into consideration, and pushing it above three months would more or less have the same effect.

 

Now, if there's a whole lotta people who agree I should make the above revisions, I'm totally open to hearing about it and why, and I may or may not be on the fence between one or two months for a time threshold again what with General's activity level (something I hadn't considered as deeply as I should have), but short of those two possibilities I'd rather not change something so soon after enforcing and clarifying on it.

 

To be fair I did enforce them. Just with only a verbal warning was all. That's like the lightest way I could possibly enforce a rule, but still.

The way the resolution is written - again, I put a lot of effort into it - allows moderators the discretion to handle posts that really are unwarranted, but otherwise abstain from interfering with legitimate and otherwise quality posting, timelines aside.

[Simping For Hina]

I mean, if we're talking about being taken seriously, it doesn't matter how you speak. It should be dependent on the place and references that invoke a serious topic, not the undertone given.

 

Kind of got to agree with CowCow, once where I don't want to, on the timing of this. But that is irrelevant in most cases, since timing is the only reason this is relevant.

 

It is moderator discretion as to what can and cannot be necrobumped, but I think that is improper way to handle it. When writing pieces of journalism, there are five key components that are convenient in knowing what to write about and what the topics should hold. General could be handled the same way. I'll only list off three of them, because two of them are focused on gaining traction and nothing more.

 

1. Novelty

2. Timely.

3. Impact.

Impact is how much of an effect the story will have, and how many people could be involved in the topic. This is what could dictate Debates as it is the most controversial and where more ideas collide. The impact of a story isn't just the effect it has on what the topic is about. It also involves how people view a topic, the ability to have different sides of and argue about it. These topics are the ones that bring out the passionate side of people, and how stubborn people can be. It is the best explanation for Debates. (Irrelevant to the topic, but wanted to mention it).

Now, topics in General itself are the ones that comply with Novelty and Timely. The timely topics are when and what is occurring at a time, not anything more. This could be a local finding of a lost boy (from neverland) or a riot that occurred in the streets. The reason why these things are happening are the discussion, but the event itself occurring is the one that actually matters in the topic given. That is why Breaking News only mentions the subjects and let people fight their figures as much as they want. These topics are the ones the General used to be in high of, and the ones that aren't meant to be necrobumped. News stories, while weird most of the time, will repeat in some manner. Make a new thread for it.
 

The novelty specific is like the Food thread, that doesn't have a timeline on it and can just post it. The same thing with the Post A Pic of Yourself. It has one main idea, but no timeline to it. Anyone can get involved in posting of a picture of themselves, and the only relevance is that they are posting a picture. The same thing with other things that have been brought up. Now, I am not saying that the necrobump should be upheld, but the restriction shouldn't have as much of a matter with them. Sure, give it to the mod to have his discretion, but I hate that idea (No offense, Yui).

 

YCM lacks actually statements of how the rules are maintained in the most common of instances, regardless of the amount of occurence. The rules are controlled by moderator discretion, and that is just stupid. There should always be clear indications, not given up to interpretation. The mods aren't all the same and most of them are terrible outside of their element. Members are also really good at doing what they want regardless of what the rules have, because most of it is common knowledge in strict form.

 

tl;dr rant about #modsnotgods, more clear communication, and change up how Yui handles General.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I wrote it as a resolution so it would get taken more seriously. I don't appreciate being mocked. Why be hostile? I put a lot of effort into writing this.

I am neither mocking nor hostile. My apologies for coming across that way. I legitimately am telling you how it seems to come off as. Because it would be a lot more clear to say it in simpler terms. As well as easier to discuss. We're not a court of law (which iirc you study which is probably why you decided to do it like this.) where this is the way to best get something across. An internet forum is a lot better with plain speak.

 

But not gonna go too off topic now sorry again for how it came across.

[Wahrheit]

I mean, if we're talking about being taken seriously, it doesn't matter how you speak. It should be dependent on the place and references that invoke a serious topic, not the undertone given.

 

Kind of got to agree with CowCow, once where I don't want to, on the timing of this. But that is irrelevant in most cases, since timing is the only reason this is relevant.

 

It is moderator discretion as to what can and cannot be necrobumped, but I think that is improper way to handle it. When writing pieces of journalism, there are five key components that are convenient in knowing what to write about and what the topics should hold. General could be handled the same way. I'll only list off three of them, because two of them are focused on gaining traction and nothing more.

 

1. Novelty

2. Timely.

3. Impact.

 

Impact is how much of an effect the story will have, and how many people could be involved in the topic. This is what could dictate Debates as it is the most controversial and where more ideas collide. The impact of a story isn't just the effect it has on what the topic is about. It also involves how people view a topic, the ability to have different sides of and argue about it. These topics are the ones that bring out the passionate side of people, and how stubborn people can be. It is the best explanation for Debates. (Irrelevant to the topic, but wanted to mention it).

 

Now, topics in General itself are the ones that comply with Novelty and Timely. The timely topics are when and what is occurring at a time, not anything more. This could be a local finding of a lost boy (from neverland) or a riot that occurred in the streets. The reason why these things are happening are the discussion, but the event itself occurring is the one that actually matters in the topic given. That is why Breaking News only mentions the subjects and let people fight their figures as much as they want. These topics are the ones the General used to be in high of, and the ones that aren't meant to be necrobumped. News stories, while weird most of the time, will repeat in some manner. Make a new thread for it.

 

The novelty specific is like the Food thread, that doesn't have a timeline on it and can just post it. The same thing with the Post A Pic of Yourself. It has one main idea, but no timeline to it. Anyone can get involved in posting of a picture of themselves, and the only relevance is that they are posting a picture. The same thing with other things that have been brought up. Now, I am not saying that the necrobump should be upheld, but the restriction shouldn't have as much of a matter with them. Sure, give it to the mod to have his discretion, but I hate that idea (No offense, Yui).

 

YCM lacks actually statements of how the rules are maintained in the most common of instances, regardless of the amount of occurence. The rules are controlled by moderator discretion, and that is just stupid. There should always be clear indications, not given up to interpretation. The mods aren't all the same and most of them are terrible outside of their element. Members are also really good at doing what they want regardless of what the rules have, because most of it is common knowledge in strict form.

 

tl;dr rant about #modsnotgods, more clear communication, and change up how Yui handles General.

I find your post really interesting, because I have basically the opposite take on the mods - having bright-line rules seems to discourage the use of discretion, where it should be obvious that rules and discretion can work well together. In my view, the mods seem to be too reliant on waiting until something has broken the rules, or enforcing the rules in cases where doing so doesn't really improve the community. I think a more healthy understanding and discussion around nuance and discretion would be very valuable.

 

I obviously agree that threads around current events might not warrant necrobumping in most cases (though I can easily imagine when an old thread should come back, and of course the point in bumping a thread rather than starting a new one is that there is value to be gained from the prior posts for new readers) - but, like you said, more generally applicable threads can be handled more gently with little negative impact, if any.

[Simping For Hina]

I am neither mocking nor hostile. My apologies for coming across that way. I legitimately am telling you how it seems to come off as. Because it would be a lot more clear to say it in simpler terms. As well as easier to discuss. We're not a court of law (which iirc you study which is probably why you decided to do it like this.) where this is the way to best get something across. An internet forum is a lot better with plain speak.

Content shouldn't be based around how it is written unless unclear. "Plain speak" is preference and doesn't determine anything. This is in simple terms, different style. It is easy to discuss. The best way to get something across is by bringing it up, nothing more.

[Wahrheit]

I am neither mocking nor hostile. My apologies for coming across that way. I legitimately am telling you how it seems to come off as. Because it would be a lot more clear to say it in simpler terms. As well as easier to discuss. We're not a court of law (which iirc you study which is probably why you decided to do it like this.) where this is the way to best get something across. An internet forum is a lot better with plain speak.

 

But not gonna go too off topic now sorry again for how it came across.

The way it was written was designed to give the mods the exact framework that they might use, with the justifications necessary to explain that framework when demanded. Writing it in less clear terms would lead to ambiguity and confusion on all sides. I wrote it this way to minimize conflict.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Content shouldn't be based around how it is written unless unclear. "Plain speak" is preference and doesn't determine anything. This is in simple terms, different style. It is easy to discuss. The best way to get something across is by bringing it up, nothing more.

How clear something is is determined by preferences. To be clear to the majority of people the most common speech is usually best.

 

That's probably all I'll say on this though as it's not the main topic. Just thought I would mention a concern.

[Simping For Hina]

I find your post really interesting, because I have basically the opposite take on the mods - having bright-line rules seems to discourage the use of discretion, where it should be obvious that rules and discretion can work well together. In my view, the mods seem to be too reliant on waiting until something has broken the rules, or enforcing the rules in cases where doing so doesn't really improve the community. I think a more healthy understanding and discussion around nuance and discretion would be very valuable.

That is a fun way of looking at it. It is more or less what I believe to be true, for how the mods act publicly. The mods have done somethings that don't have any consistency with what is allowed or what verdict is given, and they go back and forth on it a few times. Mostly in warnings and punishment. Everything else is done publicly, how it is handled and situated. I like the idea of healthy discussion and discretion if it is going to be ran that way, I can get behind it.

[Wahrheit]

That is a fun way of looking at it. It is more or less what I believe to be true, for how the mods act publicly. The mods have done somethings that don't have any consistency with what is allowed or what verdict is given, and they go back and forth on it a few times. Mostly in warnings and punishment. Everything else is done publicly, how it is handled and situated. I like the idea of healthy discussion and discretion if it is going to be ran that way, I can get behind it.

Right - you identify an issue with the actual decisionmaking surrounding any specific issue, but I think that's a separate (but not unimportant) question.

 

This thread is meant to address the processes by which the mods seem to feel bound - Yui admits that my post was not detrimental to the thread, but warned me for "necrobumping" because that's what the rules say. But, if the rules were written to promote healthy section activity and my post was making the section healthier, it seems like the rules in this instance would contradict the goals that underlie them. Surely, we can do better.

[Simping For Hina]

How clear something is is determined by preferences. To be clear to the majority of people the most common speech is usually best.

 

That's probably all I'll say on this though as it's not the main topic. Just thought I would mention a concern.

If you read it, it is clear. If you can't read because CAPITALIZATION is a problem, that is not at the fault of the user, but at the fault of the reader. Common speak is fine. What he did is common speak in a format. It honestly doesn't matter. It only bothers you because it is a different structure. There is nothing wrong with it, and there is nothing to dumb down. You're right that this is not the main topic, there was no need to bring it up or mention it. For bringing up already deters from the topic and just makes a post seem hostile. Part of that is the lack of importance is actually matters and more on the idea of catering to people when people don't need to be catered to in this scenario.

Right - you identify an issue with the actual decisionmaking surrounding any specific issue, but I think that's a separate (but not unimportant) question.

 

This thread is meant to address the processes by which the mods seem to feel bound - Yui admits that my post was not detrimental to the thread, but warned me for "necrobumping" because that's what the rules say. But, if the rules were written to promote healthy section activity and my post was making the section healthier, it seems like the rules in this instance would contradict the goals that underlie them. Surely, we can do better.

You're fun to have around. The mod mandates aren't structured in a way that promote anything, they make sure things are running. Nice perspective in moving forward if we do.

[Wahrheit]

You're fun to have around. The mod mandates aren't structured in a way that promote anything, they make sure things are running. Nice perspective in moving forward if we do.

I mean, once upon a time, the rules were founded upon a site of higher principles - to make the site a worthwhile contribution to the greater internet, to moderate the content in a way that would protect vulnerable users, and to encourage discussion and healthy relationships between all users, and the longevity of the boards at large.

 

If they're not serving any of those principles, well, what are they doing?

[Simping For Hina]

I mean, once upon a time, the rules were founded upon a site of higher principles - to make the site a worthwhile contribution to the greater internet, to moderate the content in a way that would protect vulnerable users, and to encourage discussion and healthy relationships between all users, and the longevity of the boards at large.

 

If they're not serving any of those principles, well, what are they doing?

Whether people like it or not, YCM is consistently dwindling down on activity and the only thing that keeps it around is the novelty of everyone. We built a community that thrives with people we know, but doesn't grow. The people that are here are the ones that have been here and stuck around, on their own accord, not of the desire to maintain consistency. The forum doesn't have growth, it has comfort. The principles and rules kind of just keep to that. Mainly the only focus is to keep those who are around, around. So, you're focusing on more than the growth of the forum and how it can build from what already exists, not build up walls around everything.

[Wahrheit]

Whether people like it or not, YCM is consistently dwindling down on activity and the only thing that keeps it around is the novelty of everyone. We built a community that thrives with people we know, but doesn't grow. The people that are here are the ones that have been here and stuck around, on their own accord, not of the desire to maintain consistency. The forum doesn't have growth, it has comfort. The principles and rules kind of just keep to that. Mainly the only focus is to keep those who are around, around. So, you're focusing on more than the growth of the forum and how it can build from what already exists, not build up walls around everything.

I think the principles that foster growth and maintain existing activity are essentially the same. You're not going to keep people around by telling them "oh, your post is fine but it technically breaks some arbitrary rule that doesn't really apply here, but it's the rule, so I'm going to publicly shame you."

 

Let's be real.

[Yui]

This thread is meant to address the processes by which the mods seem to feel bound - Yui admits that my post was not detrimental to the thread, but warned me for "necrobumping" because that's what the rules say. But, if the rules were written to promote healthy section activity and my post was making the section healthier, it seems like the rules in this instance would contradict the goals that underlie them. Surely, we can do better.

Okay so. So. Wahr, I like your angle here, especially with this post. But I'd also like to make one thing abundantly clear. If and when I change the necrobump rules, I will change them. With my own words. Not yours. If this comes off as hostile or anything that's the furthest thing from my intent, but revising the rules is my job and mine specifically. I'll make sure it's all worked out if we change things up ^_~

 

That being said, the collective posts between you and Dae are giving me a perspective on this I wasn't seeing before, especially the bit regarding journalism, and I am still kinda breaking in my mod shoes so yeah, lowkey surprised it took this long for any issues to come up tbh. However, I still would like to see some other takes on necrobump rules in General before I really think about touching the rules literally less than six hours after enforcing them. I SEE Y'ALL VIEWING THIS THREAD!

 

Y'all think I don't see that skittles bag of a user list? Get in here and tell me what y'all think about the subject.

[Wahrheit]

Okay so. So. Wahr, I like your angle here, especially with this post. But I'd also like to make one thing abundantly clear. If and when I change the necrobump rules, I will change them. With my own words. Not yours. If this comes off as hostile or anything that's the furthest thing from my intent, but revising the rules is my job and mine specifically. I'll make sure it's all worked out if we change things up ^_~

 

That being said, the collective posts between you and Dae are giving me a perspective on this I wasn't seeing before, especially the bit regarding journalism, and I am still kinda breaking in my mod shoes so yeah, lowkey surprised it took this long for any issues to come up tbh. However, I still would like to see some other takes on necrobump rules in General before I really think about touching the rules literally less than six hours after enforcing them. I SEE Y'ALL VIEWING THIS THREAD!

 

Y'all think I don't see that skittles bag of a user list? Get in here and tell me what y'all think about the subject.

It's probably because someone sent it around on Facebook or something.

 

You can do whatever you want with regards to "if and when [you] change the necrobump rules" - this was a resolution, and thereby a plea for a change. The benefit of a resolution is that, as written, it includes justifications and specific actions, and can thereby be adopted immediately, if desired. But of course resolutions tend to pass through a motion-amendment process, and I would be foolish to think that no suggestions or discussion would follow my posting of the thread.

 

In fact, suggestions and discussion were exactly what I had hoped for - that's why this was a thread, not just an angry PM. The community deserves the right to be heard, and you ought to hear them. So far, you've heard Cowcow complain and personally insult me without any substantive discussion, and Dae discuss the other issues tangential to this one. An objection has yet to be made to regarding the specific form, recommended actions, or justifications of the resolution itself. I am eager to hear any, if they exist.

 

Of course, comments in support would be welcomed, too.

[Dad]

During the brief time I was moderating General, Necrobumping was hardly an issue.  Typically, if it was still on the front page and wasn't dated content -- a current event that could have been better discussed in a related debates thread, or an event that was time specific -- I let it go.  I was lenient, believe it or not.  I see the verbal warning as good and bad.  I'm gonna go into more detail.

 

Good

 

• It allowed Yui to act in a way that was no too heavy handed, and showed that he was looking at the section
• It created discussion for the rulings of General
• It allowed us a quick glimpse as to how Yui intends to handle certain activities in General (specifically, in this case, necrobumping)

 

Bad

 

• It was a bit arbitrary
• While it wasn't heavy handed, I don't think it was necessary at all

 

My opinion.  Take it as you will.  Am I in support of revising the Necrobumping rule?  Sure, why the funk not.  As for the rest, that's on ya'll.  Just don't get mad when I post a bunch of incomprehensible cajun recipes in the cooking thread.

[Wahrheit]

During the brief time I was moderating General, Necrobumping was hardly an issue.  Typically, if it was still on the front page and wasn't dated content -- a current event that could have been better discussed in a related debates thread, or an event that was time specific -- I let it go.  I was lenient, believe it or not.  I see the verbal warning as good and bad.  I'm gonna go into more detail.

 

Good

 

• It allowed Yui to act in a way that was no too heavy handed, and showed that he was looking at the section
• It created discussion for the rulings of General
• It allowed us a quick glimpse as to how Yui intends to handle certain activities in General (specifically, in this case, necrobumping)

 

Bad

 

• It was a bit arbitrary
• While it wasn't heavy handed, I don't think it was necessary at all

 

My opinion.  Take it as you will.  Am I in support of revising the Necrobumping rule?  Sure, why the funk not.  As for the rest, that's on ya'll.  Just don't get mad when I post a bunch of incomprehensible cajun recipes in the cooking thread.

I'm going to harass you via PM to post cajun recipes at least once a month.

[Octosquid]

I SEE Y'ALL VIEWING THIS THREAD!

OH NO I've been found out...

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the rules for the General section of the Yugioh Card Maker Forum be amended to allow the discretion of the moderators in forbearing from the enforcement of rules where necessary, proper, or for the public interest; and

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the forbearance of the moderators be exercised only where they see fit and not as a limitation of their abilities to moderate where necessary, proper, or for the public interest; and

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the moderators take all due care in evaluating the legitimacy and necessity of enforcing alleged violations of rules in reports, with the full faith and credit they are given.

Um, so I think that it'd be interesting to have a rule where the mods are allowed discretion on whether a technical break in the rules is worthy of any action on their part. I trust the mods that I've interacted with, Yui included, and I think they'd usually make the right decision on this stuff.

 

However, I'm kinda iffy about actually supporting this as an actual rule change since from what I've seen around the forum, I think a lot of the older users feel that the moderators have abused their power. I think the rule change above would be difficult to do with specific criteria. People probably disagree on which instances need mod action, and unless really detailed criteria is listed on when a rule should be ignored or enforced, the mod discretion clause might be interpreted as giving them the ability to do whatever they want. I've snooped around some of the threads about winter and the duck, and I think it's going to take a larger discussion involving the site in general and a good deal of trust building for people to be on board with a rule change like that without involving a Huge conflict Revolution.

 

I would like to see a necrobumping rule change potentially. I think revising it would be the best way to prevent issues like this from happening again. I have no clue what it should be changed to honestly though. Dae's idea of having different topics have different necrobumping rules might work. Extending the time might work too.

 

TL;DR: I'm fine with the proposed changes, but I don't think a lot of others will be. Necrobumping could use an update, but I'm not sure how it should be done.

 

Feel free to ignore me since I'm new (sorta, will explain elsewhere)

 

*Activates Compulsory Evacuation Device, Targets self*

[Wahrheit]

OH NO I've been found out...

 

Um, so I think that it'd be interesting to have a rule where the mods are allowed discretion on whether a technical break in the rules is worthy of any action on their part. I trust the mods that I've interacted with, Yui included, and I think they'd usually make the right decision on this stuff.

 

However, I'm kinda iffy about actually supporting this as an actual rule change since from what I've seen around the forum, I think a lot of the older users feel that the moderators have abused their power. I think the rule change above would be difficult to do with specific criteria. People probably disagree on which instances need mod action, and unless really detailed criteria is listed on when a rule should be ignored or enforced, the mod discretion clause might be interpreted as giving them the ability to do whatever they want. I've snooped around some of the threads about winter and the duck, and I think it's going to take a larger discussion involving the site in general and a good deal of trust building for people to be on board with a rule change like that without involving a Huge conflict Revolution.

 

I would like to see a necrobumping rule change potentially. I think revising it would be the best way to prevent issues like this from happening again. I have no clue what it should be changed to honestly though. Dae's idea of having different topics have different necrobumping rules might work. Extending the time might work too.

 

TL;DR: I'm fine with the proposed changes, but I don't think a lot of others will be. Necrobumping could use an update, but I'm not sure how it should be done.

 

Feel free to ignore me since I'm new (sorta, will explain elsewhere)

 

*Activates Compulsory Evacuation Device, Targets self*

Part of the value of this set of recommendations, as written, is that it allows moderators to abstain from acting where they feel it appropriate. What it does not do is prevent users from voicing their objections to this abstention.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Moderators already act at their own discretion. A change is not needed because what you are asking for is already the case.

 

The staff aren't hounds that attack at every minor infraction.

[Wahrheit]

Moderators already act at their own discretion. A change is not needed because what you are asking for is already the case.

 

The staff aren't hounds that attack at every minor infraction.

Oh, come on. We both know that's not true. In the case instanter, Yui only acted because of Cowcow's report. This was admitted. Either you're insulting Yui's judgment, or you don't really believe this.

[Yui]

Oh, come on. We both know that's not true. In the case instanter, Yui only acted because of Cowcow's report. This was admitted. Either you're insulting Yui's judgment, or you don't really believe this.

Actually...

 

I also admitted you were probably getting a verbal warn whether he reported it or not. Just, yknow, putting that out there to clear up any potential misunderstandings.