Changes to the Rules

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Ricky is right, that it is unfortunate that a person could get a rule #9 because they hadn't logged in for a few days.  There is no way around that.

Unfortunate, yes, but if a person breaks enough rules in a day to get a Corner sentence and then fails to log in, that's the risk they run.  Granted, things come up, but if one generally follows the rules in the first place and self-polices one's mistakes, that risk should be kept relatively low.

I think the biggest improvement will be in the occasional cases where members have a bad night and make a bunch of posts they don't really mean.  In the past, members who had emotional nights or posted under the influence have logged on to large corner sentences the next day.  Hopefully, 24 hours is enough time to calm down or sober up, and a member can go back and review their posts before the punishments start rolling in.  I'd personally advise editing anything questionable, in case some reports are still backlogged and get processed while you're offline.

Yes, we'll still have a few undeserved Rule #9s, but there should be a definite improvement.

[Waldo]

Couldn't the mods just go to the offenders profile and check when he last logged in?

[JustMyron]

Couldn't the mods just go to the offenders profile and check when he last logged in?

What would we do when someone says something really nasty and then doesn't log on for a week (or leaves the forum entirely)? We have to have a cut-off point at which the moderators edit things, and it wouldn't be particularly fair if you'd logged on briefly but not checked your messages, and so you got penalized, whereas someone who had their messages come to them in their e-mail and decided not to log on so as to avoid a penalty while still being able to leave their posts unedited would be able to get away with it.

[Sita]

Couldn't the mods just go to the offenders profile and check when he last logged in?

I do this.  The last 2 cornerings, both offenders were logged in during the 24 hour period.  There is no way to tell if they read their PMs, at least not that I know of, and if they read the PM, I certainly can?t force them to change their post if they don?t want to.

[Waldo]

I get a pop up every time I get a pm.  I believe that to be optional, however.  If a post is extremely offensive, is it not ethical for the mod to edit the offending words if no response is received?  Cornering would still apply, of course.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

I get a pop up every time I get a pm.  I believe that to be optional, however.  If a post is extremely offensive, is it not ethical for the mod to edit the offending words if no response is received?  Cornering would still apply, of course.

We edit posts when we apply the Rule #9 penalty.  We may also edit NSFW images that aren't suitable to be left around for 24 hours.

Things that we enforce with penalties, particularly Rules #7 & #16, are edited right away.


If you have an issue with getting your edits in on time, might I suggest you not break the rules when you know you're not going to be online?  Or better yet, don't break them at all?  Practically speaking, you get two chances to "forget" to edit over 60 days before you get Corner time.  Which means that you can break 2 rules a month and then not log on, and still avoid the Corner.

And if you're getting 3+ posts in a single night, and then log off for a week without checking your PMs, should you really be extended sympathy?

[Sita]

Yes, pop ups are optional.  If no response is received or the post has not been edited within 24 hours then a Rule #9 violation will be logged and the post will be edited by a mod.  Members are not restricted to the corner until 3 or more violations are logged.

[Rox]

Re the rule change, why not leave it to the moderators' (collective) discretion whether to charge a member with an etiquette violation or with a rule violation?  The mods already vote on the outcome of most rulings so it should be straightforward for them to, as part of that voting process, also decide on the severity of the transgression;  Mild = Etiquette, Severe = Rule.

I support a suggestion like this.  I'd much prefer a system where the mods make the judgement calls according to their experience as moderators.

No matter what they do they'll always be on the wrong side of someone and the right side of someone else.

Mods aren't always going to be liked but in my opinion their decisions should be respected.  It's never that black and white to moderate a discussion forum.  Isn't that why there's such a trouble with balancing the rules?
I think the members could do more to help respect the difficult job they do and allow for a more flexible system within the grey areas.

Mods work for the benefit of the forum as a whole and I'm all for supporting them doing their job using as much of their discretion as they see fit.

I've been moderated on other fora and I didn't always like the decision but I respected the instructions and followed them.

Nazi-mods always stand out and never last long in their roles.  My experiences here, so far, are that the mods are fair, but slaves to the rule system themselves.

I?d much rather see the mods making the calls and the members respecting the decisions like grown adults.

[wabbit111]

Can I ask for some clarification on a couple of points.

Take the word "b***h"

As I understand it if hypothetically I called someone who say, made an opinionated post I thought was unnecessary, a b***h, and they reported the post, I would accept I was in the wrong, and rightly so. However if I called my old mate Judo a b***h, as I often do. And added a smiley, would this be acceptable in the spirit of which it was done. i.e. jest.

Also if someone who bore a grudge, say someone with strong opinions about this sort of thing, saw me calling Judo a b***h in jest and reported it, would I be in trouble, even though the recipient of the post was quite happy with it?

[Happy Evolute]

If the insult was clearly humorous then it would not be considered a Rule #6 breach.

[wabbit111]

If the insult was clearly humorous then it would not be considered a Rule #6 breach.

Thank you for that H E, but what constitutes clearly.

Would a laughing smiley at the end suffice to indicate it was meant in jest?

[Happy Evolute]

If the insult was clearly humorous then it would not be considered a Rule #6 breach.

Thank you for that H E, but what constitutes clearly.

Would a laughing smiley at the end suffice to indicate it was meant in jest?

It's not always necessary to put a smiley, usually context is sufficient.

[wabbit111]

If the insult was clearly humorous then it would not be considered a Rule #6 breach.

Thank you for that H E, but what constitutes clearly.

Would a laughing smiley at the end suffice to indicate it was meant in jest?

It's not always necessary to put a smiley, usually context is sufficient.

so I wouldn't get away with calling someone a b***h and sticking a smiley on the end then 

[Shylala]

what are you planning wabbit?

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

so I wouldn't get away with calling someone a b***h and sticking a smiley on the end then 

No, though it has been tried many times in the past.

[Rox]

so I wouldn't get away with calling someone a b***h and sticking a smiley on the end then 

Yes you could, you just have to be careful how you word it.