Rules Determination

[benga]

Woody made great remarks and he should be heard more.

There us so much inconsistency in applying the rules right now.

And I feel judgements so far were done based on subjective not objective reasons.

[Woodruff]

- Secret Diplomacy is enforced when it can be proven. It's super tough to prove secret diplomacy, and it's a bit biased for a person in the game to actually look at whether it was secret diplomacy or just bad luck of being stuck in the wrong place between two players. As for foreign languages, I agree that all foreign language that each player cannot speak should be disallowed in a game regardless of the context of the conversation.

This is basically how it is. If you see another language being spoken, you can report it. The mods will look into it just as with any other SD claim. It could be that it's not actually SD (if the talk has nothing to do with the game), just like any other SD claim.

I've only run across this once, and all I had to do was politely ask for English only in chat and it didn't happen again. So, I agree with the foreign language rule as it is written and have never seen a C&A case on it, so I don't know if there's any problem with enforcement.

Several exist. Some are ruled such that the use of a foreign language itself constitutes a violation. Some are ruled such that the use of a foreign language itself does not constitute a violation.

I think Woodruff's suggestion was more to try to standardize the rules, with the throwing away of the rules as more of a tongue in cheek "if you dont change just get rid of them" line of thought.

That is the way I took it. Not an actual call for anarchy.

That's what I thought, too. But his response was the one chap quoted. He said he does want to get rid of a lot of the rules.

I'm VERY confused by your statement here. It appears that, similar to chapcrap, you read one line and didn't work to figure in the context involved never mind read my response to him.

[Woodruff]

I think Woodruff's suggestion was more to try to standardize the rules, with the throwing away of the rules as more of a tongue in cheek "if you dont change just get rid of them" line of thought.

You are essentially correct, though I would place it a tad above "tongue in cheek" and put it more at "exasperated desperation at something that would mimic standardization".

[Woodruff]

Nice thread Woodster.
7 days from you posting such a great list of things for the admin to consider and so far, the amount of admin responses sum up why this site is going down the shitter.

In truth, 7 days isn't necessarily that long of a time, as the two of them probably don't really inhabit the Suggestions area that much themselves, nor really need to. So I'm not disappointed...yet.

[deathcomesrippin]

I think Woodruff's suggestion was more to try to standardize the rules, with the throwing away of the rules as more of a tongue in cheek "if you dont change just get rid of them" line of thought.

You are essentially correct, though I would place it a tad above "tongue in cheek" and put it more at "exasperated desperation at something that would mimic standardization".

I was being a bit cautious.

[greenoaks]

i think CC should introduce a rule that all those wankers who refer to this as fora should be perma-banned.

[agentcom]

i think CC should introduce a rule that all those wankers who refer to this as fora should be perma-banned.

It would be "refer to these as fora." I would refer to this as a forum.

- Secret Diplomacy is enforced when it can be proven. It's super tough to prove secret diplomacy, and it's a bit biased for a person in the game to actually look at whether it was secret diplomacy or just bad luck of being stuck in the wrong place between two players. As for foreign languages, I agree that all foreign language that each player cannot speak should be disallowed in a game regardless of the context of the conversation.

This is basically how it is. If you see another language being spoken, you can report it. The mods will look into it just as with any other SD claim. It could be that it's not actually SD (if the talk has nothing to do with the game), just like any other SD claim.

I've only run across this once, and all I had to do was politely ask for English only in chat and it didn't happen again. So, I agree with the foreign language rule as it is written and have never seen a C&A case on it, so I don't know if there's any problem with enforcement.

Several exist. Some are ruled such that the use of a foreign language itself constitutes a violation. Some are ruled such that the use of a foreign language itself does not constitute a violation.

The one that I just saw ruled on didn't hold use of foreign language as a violation. They looked to see if there was any talk about the game. Not finding any, the players were cleared.

I think Woodruff's suggestion was more to try to standardize the rules, with the throwing away of the rules as more of a tongue in cheek "if you dont change just get rid of them" line of thought.

That is the way I took it. Not an actual call for anarchy.

That's what I thought, too. But his response was the one chap quoted. He said he does want to get rid of a lot of the rules.

I'm VERY confused by your statement here. It appears that, similar to chapcrap, you read one line and didn't work to figure in the context involved never mind read my response to him.

I'm not sure what you're confused about. I'm thinking back to this:

I don't have time to go too deep on this now. One thing that might work against you is that your suggestion, in a way, is ONE suggestion: get rid of the rules (I know I'm simplifying). But in another way, it's several suggestions because it talks about amending all manner of forum rules. This will make it really hard to have discussions on where each rule should end up (assuming they're not completely done away with).

My actual suggestion is to get rid of the rules. However, I recognize that the powers that be are not likely to want to do so (for obvious reasons), and so I have also provided what I believe to be important points in making those rules relevant/more relevant if that is their decision. I didn't want to enact a suggestion for each one, as I felt that would result in an accusation of spamming/trolling against me (as has already been hinted at).

[Woodruff]

- Secret Diplomacy is enforced when it can be proven. It's super tough to prove secret diplomacy, and it's a bit biased for a person in the game to actually look at whether it was secret diplomacy or just bad luck of being stuck in the wrong place between two players. As for foreign languages, I agree that all foreign language that each player cannot speak should be disallowed in a game regardless of the context of the conversation.

This is basically how it is. If you see another language being spoken, you can report it. The mods will look into it just as with any other SD claim. It could be that it's not actually SD (if the talk has nothing to do with the game), just like any other SD claim.

I've only run across this once, and all I had to do was politely ask for English only in chat and it didn't happen again. So, I agree with the foreign language rule as it is written and have never seen a C&A case on it, so I don't know if there's any problem with enforcement.

Several exist. Some are ruled such that the use of a foreign language itself constitutes a violation. Some are ruled such that the use of a foreign language itself does not constitute a violation.

The one that I just saw ruled on didn't hold use of foreign language as a violation. They looked to see if there was any talk about the game. Not finding any, the players were cleared.

I couldn't find any in my search either, but I am absolutely certain it has happened in the past. At any rate, because my search skills seem to suck, I'm willing to concede that PERHAPS it never existed. <chuckle>

The problem, as I see it, is that someone seeing game chat in a foreign language can't know whether it is secret diplomacy or not, right? So they go to a web-translator to see if it is. But by doing so, they discover that the foreign language posted was indeed secret diplomacy AND YET because they are REQUIRED to make this check before it can be declared "secret diplomacy"...it fascinatingly no longer QUALIFIES as secret diplomacy, because it's not secret anymore (it was revealed via the web-translator)! Essentially, the "secret diplomacy via foreign language" rule is null and void as it is currently applied. If the use of a web-translator is required of a user to discover if a foreign chat is secret diplomacy or not, then the possibility of "secret diplomacy" cannot possibly happen. It is a useless rule and should therefore be eliminated.

I think Woodruff's suggestion was more to try to standardize the rules, with the throwing away of the rules as more of a tongue in cheek "if you dont change just get rid of them" line of thought.

That is the way I took it. Not an actual call for anarchy.

That's what I thought, too. But his response was the one chap quoted. He said he does want to get rid of a lot of the rules.

I'm VERY confused by your statement here. It appears that, similar to chapcrap, you read one line and didn't work to figure in the context involved never mind read my response to him.

I'm not sure what you're confused about. I'm thinking back to this:

In reading that entire statement (deleted to save space, but it's in the post directly above this one), it should become quite clear what the intent is. I'm sorry the context is creating a struggle for you. Not only that, but focusing on that aspect really completely takes away from the potential effectiveness of the suggestion itself.

[thegreekdog]

I was not avoiding this thread purposefully, I just rarely come to suggestions.

I think Woodruff has an interesting take on solving potential problems (regarding consistency and rule violations). I do not agree with most of his premise, but I'm biased. I do think striving to be consistent is important, but I have an inherent and vehement dislike for hypocrisy.

I think better and clearer definitions for trolling and other forum violations would be helpful.

[Woodruff]

I was not avoiding this thread purposefully, I just rarely come to suggestions.

You and lackattack both.

I think Woodruff has an interesting take on solving potential problems (regarding consistency and rule violations). I do not agree with most of his premise, but I'm biased.

I'm ok with that. Could I get you to discuss the portions you disagree with?

I do think striving to be consistent is important, but I have an inherent and vehement dislike for hypocrisy.

Do you believe I'm being hypocritical with this suggestion?

[thegreekdog]

I do not believe you are being hypocritical. I do believe you are being ironic (notwithstanding your use of the word "serious").

Here are the suggestions I agree with:

- Remove the rule regarding "unwritten" rules as regards gross abuse of the game. I think the rules should be set out in black and white. If something happens that looks like a gross abuse of the game, a rule should be written and applied prospectively (not retroactively).

- Remove the community guideline for trolling. I think trolling will fall appropriately under baiting. Trolling is too amorphous a concept to have as a rule.

Could I get you to discuss the portions you disagree with?

Sure.

[Woodruff]

I do not believe you are being hypocritical.

Glad to hear it.

I do believe you are being ironic (notwithstanding your use of the word "serious").

I can't claim innocence of that, I must admit. But I am attempting to use some irony (and plenty of sarcasm) in a serious manner.

Here are the suggestions I agree with:
- Remove the rule regarding "unwritten" rules as regards gross abuse of the game. I think the rules should be set out in black and white. If something happens that looks like a gross abuse of the game, a rule should be written and applied prospectively (not retroactively).

I have no problem with this at all. It seems perfectly fair. I agree that it should not be applied retroactively. However, I'm not sure if something along the lines of "gross abuse" CAN necessarily be put into black-and-white terms. Some finesse seems necessary, to me.

- Remove the community guideline for trolling. I think trolling will fall appropriately under baiting. Trolling is too amorphous a concept to have as a rule.

I see little difference between trolling and baiting. Trolling is simply the widespread use of baiting (as I've always perceived it), so this is fine with me.

Could I get you to discuss the portions you disagree with?

Sure.

Well don't keep me in suspense! <laughing>

[thegreekdog]

(1) Someone being "intentionally annoying" is subjective. Some posters may find a user to be intentionally annoying, while others may not. There are two potential routes to deal with someone that some find intentionally annoying and some don't: (a) discpiline the person; (b) ask the people that are annoyed to ignore the person. Option (a) has some finality and consequences to it. Option (b) does not. That does not mean that we should not discipline someone who is being intentionally annoying to everyone or is being so intentionally annoying as to be disruptive. The subjectivity of someone being intentionally annoying combined with the banning system is a dangerous combination for both consistency and enjoyment of the website.

(2) Bigotry should not be subjective and there should be concrete rules on what is not acceptable. However, bigotry is subjective. Someone said this in another thread: an American may not find the word "Paki" to be objectionable. But it is to a whole lot of people. I also don't want to chill any speech on race, religion, etc. So, bigotry is going to be subjective.

(3) Flaming is also very subjective. I believe that flaming happens when someone is truly bothered by what someone else posts about them. For example, you might tell me to f*ck off. That doesn't bother me. If it truly bothers someone else, I think that's flaming. Total subjectivity.

I think that people complain about moderation because it's easy to complain about. Moderators have to balance two important things. On one side there is the enforcement of the rules to make the forum enjoyable to all. On the other side are the rules themselves. For example (and as I've argued before), if I were to make a very strict interpretation of trolling as being intentionally annoying and applied it with consistency to all users, we would have little participation in the forum because everyone would be on three months bans. I don't want this to happen because I love (yes love) the off topics forum. I like that saxitoxin posted a "hey everyone, how's it going" thread and then someone else posted a "good, how are you" thread. I like that we have political and religious discussions that convince no one of anything. I like that we have NSFW thread where people post pictures of overweight women and others get angry. That's entertaining to me and a whole host of others. If we start taking a hardline interpretation of trolling, those threads are gone. That entertainment is gone.

That's my interpretation of things and I am only speaking for myself, not all the other moderators. I'm sure they have their own, differing, interpretations.

[Evil Semp]

The problem, as I see it, is that someone seeing game chat in a foreign language can't know whether it is secret diplomacy or not, right? So they go to a web-translator to see if it is. But by doing so, they discover that the foreign language posted was indeed secret diplomacy AND YET because they are REQUIRED to make this check before it can be declared "secret diplomacy"...it fascinatingly no longer QUALIFIES as secret diplomacy, because it's not secret anymore (it was revealed via the web-translator)! Essentially, the "secret diplomacy via foreign language" rule is null and void as it is currently applied. If the use of a web-translator is required of a user to discover if a foreign chat is secret diplomacy or not, then the possibility of "secret diplomacy" cannot possibly happen. It is a useless rule and should therefore be eliminated.

They aren't required to use a translator.

I might said to someone that if they had used a translator they would not have had to make a C&A report about secret diplomacy. I also think if someone is chatting in a language you don't understand you should state that in chat so that the other players realize that. If it wasn't diplomacy I will send a PM to the accused mentioning the rule about chat so they know in the future.

At the time it was written in the chat it was secret.

[jgordon1111]

could someone clarify in the bigotry portion what is meant by, using religion or not using religion,that one has always thrown me for a loop. Everytime I read that I chuckle. According to that rule every player or person who has posted here is in violation.

Would that be a perma ban for all forum users,beings it escalates each time you commit a violation.

If I am misunderstanding please just let me know,it wont be the first or last time.

Sorry for the interruption woodruff. second time I have asked about this one. back to important matters now.

[Woodruff]

(1) Someone being "intentionally annoying" is subjective. Some posters may find a user to be intentionally annoying, while others may not.

Certainly true, and I believe that this particular "guideline" would only apply to the most egregious of circumstances for exactly that reason. For instance, pimpdave's incessant "Tea Party Death Squad" threads...is there really ANY question he wasn't just trying to be intentionally annoying?

(2) Bigotry should not be subjective and there should be concrete rules on what is not acceptable. However, bigotry is subjective. Someone said this in another thread: an American may not find the word "Paki" to be objectionable. But it is to a whole lot of people. I also don't want to chill any speech on race, religion, etc. So, bigotry is going to be subjective.

What you say is true. And yet, intent and context do explain most instances where real bigotry is being displayed. If there is a question about it, then it shouldn't be handled as a punishment...but far too often, there really isn't a question about it but the term used "just wasn't on the list"...that kind of crap really has to stop.

(3) Flaming is also very subjective. I believe that flaming happens when someone is truly bothered by what someone else posts about them. For example, you might tell me to f*ck off. That doesn't bother me. If it truly bothers someone else, I think that's flaming. Total subjectivity.

I tend to think that flaming ISN'T particularly subjective, to be honest. Being insulting isn't flaming. What I engaged in toward pimpdave in the thread about my cadets...that was flaming. The real problem on this subject is the massive lack of consistency involved...when someone has a target on their backs, simple insults are marked as flaming whereas far worse statements being made about someone by a moderator-friendly individual are completely overlooked.

I think that people complain about moderation because it's easy to complain about.

Perhaps in many cases what you say is true, but it is not with me. I used to be a hardened supporter of the moderators on this site. I am now amongst the most critical. I'm far from the only one, as I could point to a number of high-ranked and high-visibility users who feel the same way I do about the moderation on this site. If many of the vocal and ardent supporters have been turned against the moderation team, then I would suggest to you that there is more fire than smoke involved.

For example (and as I've argued before), if I were to make a very strict interpretation of trolling as being intentionally annoying and applied it with consistency to all users, we would have little participation in the forum because everyone would be on three months bans.

I disagree completely. I am absolutely of the opinion that such a thing wouldn't happen at all and I believe you are completely off-base. I have BECOME a sarcastic, biting annoying bitch of a poster BECAUSE I am so frustrated at the lack of action taken against those who troll so blatantly. Look at the first two years of my posts...see the difference. I was CREATED by the lack of action. (Note that I am not meaning to blame the site and not myself for my inflammatory statements, trolling, or otherwise over-the-borderline statements, merely making a point of some culpability by the site.)

Frankly, I am and have been on other fora who do take that strong stance and they manage quite well.

That's my interpretation of things and I am only speaking for myself, not all the other moderators. I'm sure they have their own, differing, interpretations.

I appreciate that you're giving your view of things, and I am at least not taking it as a "moderator stance" but only as a "thegreekdog stance".

[Woodruff]

could someone clarify in the bigotry portion what is meant by, using religion or not using religion,that one has always thrown me for a loop. Everytime I read that I chuckle. According to that rule every player or person who has posted here is in violation.

Heh...I didn't even notice that. That part definitely needs to be reworded...good catch.

Would that be a perma ban for all forum users,beings it escalates each time you commit a violation.

There are no more perma-bans!

If I am misunderstanding please just let me know,it wont be the first or last time.
Sorry for the interruption woodruff. second time I have asked about this one. back to important matters now.

Please, don't be sorry...that was an excellent point.

[jgordon1111]

Ah the removal of perma bans, I had put it out of my mind.

Very sad that,some could use it in my opinion, but that is just me.

But I digress,yes I noticed it about a year ago and brought it up once before. I think when people are reading the rules they always skim to the portion they are looking for,thus it has been overlooked for a very long time.

Maybe Admin will now look at it and adjust it along with some of the other suggestions.

[king achilles]

The Community Guidelines is always being neglected or forgotten. It may answer some of the questions some of you posted here. No matter how many times you direct a person to it, it's either still not read or selective reading is given to it or just forgotten. You know it's there, but nobody's looking.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7785#p1759438

[eddie2]

The Community Guidelines is always being neglected or forgotten. It may answer some of the questions some of you posted here. No matter how many times you direct a person to it, it's either still not read or selective reading is given to it or just forgotten. You know it's there, but nobody's looking.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7785#p1759438

no king a is the community guidelines are not the only thing used you also have the q and a section both sections can contradict each other...

i still remember a ban i nearly got in live chat for posting a medical condition of a nipple on a foot. this was deemed as pornography until andy stepped in and said it was not meant for posting porn. but i was warned not to post it again.

then you have the 1 month ban i got for reporting someone posting my first name on the site (first name is my personal information) and i had not posted it anywhere on the site until i reported the case what was your closing response.

And eddie, since you brought this out in the public, you can't report people if they call you by your first name now. With this report, you told everyone who gets to read it whether the name mentioned here is actually true or not.

the rule states in community guidelines that it can not be repeated by anyone
Personal Information: Any personal information or photos of any member is to be regarded as private and should never be posted except by the member it belongs to (although we would advise against posting your personal info).

but in your closing statement you say that because i posted it in the case anybody could use it. This is a contradiction of the rules.

[eddie2]

sorry for the double post but i need to correct the statement about perma bans.

kylegraves1 has been given a perma forum ban within the last 2 weeks.

[jgordon1111]

On the good side thank you KA for coming in and letting it be known you have read what is going on.

Any thoughts,besides the guidelines info?

[Woodruff]

The Community Guidelines is always being neglected or forgotten. It may answer some of the questions some of you posted here. No matter how many times you direct a person to it, it's either still not read or selective reading is given to it or just forgotten. You know it's there, but nobody's looking.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7785#p1759438

The Community Guidelines is precisely where I gathered most of the information for this suggestion. So I'm really confused as to how the section of the site I have most of my complaints about could be the place that could answer some of the questions I have.

Or have I completely misunderstood what you were trying to say here?

sorry for the double post but i need to correct the statement about perma bans.

kylegraves1 has been given a perma forum ban within the last 2 weeks.

That's not a perma-ban. A perma-ban is a permanent vacation from the website in entirety.

[agentcom]

[Deleted a bunch of stuff to keep this from getting unwieldy. This is your response to my last comment about using a foreign language.]

I couldn't find any in my search either, but I am absolutely certain it has happened in the past. At any rate, because my search skills seem to suck, I'm willing to concede that PERHAPS it never existed. <chuckle>

The problem, as I see it, is that someone seeing game chat in a foreign language can't know whether it is secret diplomacy or not, right? So they go to a web-translator to see if it is. But by doing so, they discover that the foreign language posted was indeed secret diplomacy AND YET because they are REQUIRED to make this check before it can be declared "secret diplomacy"...it fascinatingly no longer QUALIFIES as secret diplomacy, because it's not secret anymore (it was revealed via the web-translator)! Essentially, the "secret diplomacy via foreign language" rule is null and void as it is currently applied. If the use of a web-translator is required of a user to discover if a foreign chat is secret diplomacy or not, then the possibility of "secret diplomacy" cannot possibly happen. It is a useless rule and should therefore be eliminated.

I understand where you're coming from. What you are saying is quite right from how a person MAY handle the situation. But from a rules perspective it is different:

Once information in another language is posted about the game, there IS a rules violation. It doesn't matter if anyone in the game translates it. All that has to be done is for it to be reported. If you don't know if it is information about the game, you can report it anyway. That is what happened in the recent C&A posted by (I think) akabob.

Now, you don't HAVE to post a C&A. You could usually just ask the players to speak English. Problem probably solved. Not to say there wasn't a violation, but it probably won't get reported and if no one cares, the issue stops there.

You have to look at what these rules are trying to prevent: Secret Diplomacy. If there's no SD, there's no rules violation. If there is some small amount of SD, then there is a rules violation, but the player may end up choosing not to report it, if things get fixed and no harm is caused. If there is lots of SD, then the player will probably report it and those players will be punished.

BTW, have you ever been to a poker room in the U.S.? This is very similar to how language is handled in the many that I've been in. I don't think that this is a problematic area of the rules, AS APPLIED. But of course, I haven't seen someone being punished for non-SD foreign language.

But I do agree that this is a problem as the rules are written. If I could edit the rule (or if I could edit the mod guidelines for the rule) it would say: 1. English only in game chat unless all players agree otherwise. 2. Any conversation about the game in another language is SD, unless all players have agreed otherwise. 3. Any conversation in another language, regardless of topic, will be regarded as SD (or at least a punishable offense), if any player has requested that English only be used.

This last part would reinforce that English is the preferred language, and would prevent players from continuing to use another language and have all the other users wondering whether or not there's any SD going on or whether they should report it.

[agentcom]

[Deleted a bunch of stuff]

In reading that entire statement (deleted to save space, but it's in the post directly above this one), it should become quite clear what the intent is. I'm sorry the context is creating a struggle for you. Not only that, but focusing on that aspect really completely takes away from the potential effectiveness of the suggestion itself.

This conversation is going no where. I'm not sure if you're being intentionally insulting or not. I originally thought that I was helping you clarify your stance, but then you seemed to disagree with me both when I said you WEREN'T trying to get rid of the rules and when I said you WERE trying to get rid of them. Based on the discussion that is going on, it looks like you are trying to MODIFY or REPLACE the existing rules not get rid of them. If this is correct, I'd prefer we just drop this because I don't think it is adding anything to the conversation.