Ruleset Revamp

[Fringe Pioneer]

As you all know, we have many rules and many problems with regard to the rules. We are under the opinion that our rules should be taken out and replaced with a simple policy that holds similarities to that in Quartz Code. This is the idea, as proposed by Monokrome:

Jun 28, 2012 8:13:06 GMT monokr0me said:

I propose an exponential ZTP to solve this shitstorm once and for all; offenses of any kind get a small ban, and further bans are exponentially longer. For small, possibly ignorant offenses, a textual warning would suffice. The problem is that we need to learn to filter out complaints from whining, and some members need to learn their place. Having rigid rules are another problem; trying to cover every aspect of rulebreaking doesn't work, because when a loophole is found we have to debate for a week to cover it up. Leaving punishments to the discrepancy of the moderator based on a rule guidelineis good enough, and when in doubt, you can just undo the ban.

In short, instead of all the many rules we have and all the drama that comes with them, we will implement a much simpler ruleset and manner of enforcement. The ruleset will be based off respecting others and maintaining common sense while moderation will all be to the moderator's discretion.

The poll above will lock seven days from the moment this thread is published. You will be able to change your votes until then...

[zelkova]

Honesty, I don't know the rules. I just came from after years so I just been following the simple universal rule of "use common sense".

On this page: danballforum.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=welcome&action=display&thread=23
After I click the link to the rule page I get this: "You are trying to access a board that does not exist."

I not going to vote until I update myself to the current rules.

[D_M-01]

I like Monokr0me's idea. Replacing warns with bans would be much more effective, and users would know not the break the rules. I also agree with it being the responsibility of a moderator to ban a user if they see fit. They were placed as staff as a reason, after all.

[AlchmistFaust]

I think that there are too many warnings, but the warning Idea isn't at all bad. If the ban is the most severe punishment one can have, and it is applied too often, people won't view it as a threat and something that should be avoided, but rather as inevitable. I say that 1 warning is issued for every transgression. 2 warnings are a more severe ban.

[Dhoom2]

I'm sorry, but letting mods do whatever they please will only lead to the rise of Fascism, and you know what happened to Germany. Simply put, These rules are Fascist and anti-democratic, and will only let trigger-happy people like Fox get pleasured by such tomfoolery.

Disagree.

[D_M-01]

Jun 30, 2012 2:57:54 GMT @Dhoom2 said:

I'm sorry, but letting mods do whatever they please will only lead to the rise of Fascism, and you know what happened to Germany. Simply put, These rules are Fascist and anti-democratic, and will only let trigger-happy people like Fox get pleasured by such tomfoolery.

Disagree.

Fox is not trigger-happy. Your argument is irrelevant.

But anyways, I see Dhoom's point. That's why responsible people must be put in the staff positions, and I believe the current staff is plenty responsible.

[AlchmistFaust]

It is, however, an internet forum. The more divided the "power" is, the less it can in fact do, and every definite decision will lead into an incredible drama.

[monokr0me]

Jun 30, 2012 2:47:19 GMT AlchmistFaust said:

I think that there are too many warnings, but the warning Idea isn't at all bad. If the ban is the most severe punishment one can have, and it is applied too often, people won't view it as a threat and something that should be avoided, but rather as inevitable. I say that 1 warning is issued for every transgression. 2 warnings are a more severe ban.

Read the damn post, all of you. The bans are exponential. Within a range of 3-5 bans, the ban would extend to a year or more, if not permanent. Otherwise, first offenses would just be for an hour, a day, maybe a week. Because the warning system doesn't do shit around here.

[AlchmistFaust]

I read the damn post before saying anything, and I still disagree on the way it was issued. I think that there should be another thing besides bans, even with the lenght being flexible. This would make the bans more avoided, and perhaps the warnings could be issued in another way.

[monokr0me]

It doesn't matter if they become desensitized to being banned; they will no longer be here to bother us very quickly.

[Qwerty]

Warnings are easily ignored, but bans serve a dual purpose. Firstly, to some, they work to effectively tell someone "We don't want you to do that and we care enough to enforce it", at which point they know to stop. To others, that don't get the message, it works to stop them from doing whatever they were doing to break the rules during the duration of the ban.

[D_M-01]

If somebody cares enough about being banned they can always go to the ban repeal board, where the staff can see if justified action was taken.

[Qwerty]

I propose we rename this thread "Really Radical Ruleset Revamp".

But yeah, I'm definitely for the system for the most part, so I went yes as the OP says, but I do feel it shouldn't be the one to encompass ALL rules. Small ones, like doubleposting or advertising or whatnot, shouldn't require straight bans, and trolling/flaming should have at least one warning.

I also think forum and chat should remain separated, as they have been.

[Zrined]

I disagree, people shouldn't be constantly faced with the possibility of a ban. No one will want to be here unless it's lightened up at least a little bit.

[Fringe Pioneer]

You do realize that everyone is constantly faced with the possibility of a ban right now. It's merely that, since you aren't doing anything to warrant a ban, you're not getting a ban. Even though the ruleset will be simplified and mods given more discretion, the threat that you bring up will not be new. It will be the same way if the proposed changes were to take place - if you aren't doing anything to warrant a ban, you won't get a ban...

[Zrined]

But if you know it's now up tithe Moderator as a person and that there will be warnings for only "Minor or ignorant" infractions it provides a sense of intimidation that's not the most comfortable to have whilst on an online community that you enjoy.

[Qwerty]

If a ban is in error, the user can simply ask someone to post for them in Ban Appeals and it would be quickly resolved and, if applicable, the mod responsible punished. Besides, so long as we at least require one or two warnings, it narrows it down pretty simply: If a moderator asks you to stop doing something, stop. If that thing was not against the rules, and you are banned for continuing it, post to ban appeals. There's no threat of an instant ban unless you're posting porn or acting like a spambot. Whatever you do, you get fair warning of an incoming ban and an opportunity to stop.

[Zrined]

Eh, actually, Veers is right, I don't really care. Just worried about new members.

tl;dr: I'm an Angel.

[priok]

I kind of agree, but at the same time I think stuff should be pretty calm, I do not really think 1 day bans are that bad, and they get the point across or something. Maybe something a bit in between, something like bans are very short, but also to keep things in order where moderators aren't allowed to ban somebody for something dumb. I guess something kind of a mix between this and a warning, I do not really know. I am probably going to change my opinion about it, so remember that what I have written is not what I definitely believe: Things can still change for me.

[AlchmistFaust]

I think that immediately banning someone, no matter for how long, might scare new people off and piss old people too. One might argue about the last one, since if that person is banned, he isn't welcome here. But then, most of the forum's activity would be down. I think that making people actually fear being banned is better than simply banning.

[priok]

I agree, it seems kind of elitist in some ways, but I really am not sure if I'm understanding the whole idea. One thing I've said in the staff forum already is, if things don't go as planned, we can always revert back to what we have done before.

[Qwerty]

I can think of only one person to which this would pose an actual threat, and said person would indeed be better off somewhere else. We can make the ban increment differently maybe, and wear off over time (Like, you go down one step for every two months you don't break any rules or something like that).

Of course, full point of this is that it isn't immediately banning anyone. Everyone gets at least one warning. It's only people that don't stop when directly told to stop, post porn, act like spam bots, or have many repeat offenses and know perfectly well that something is against the rules that are indeed bannable. Should a ban be borderline it would be quickly reversed.

[zelkova]

Jun 30, 2012 1:57:11 GMT @zelkova said:

Honesty, I don't know the rules. I just came from after years so I just been following the simple universal rule of "use common sense".

On this page: danballforum.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=welcome&action=display&thread=23
After I click the link to the rule page I get this: "You are trying to access a board that does not exist."

I not going to vote until I update myself to the current rules.

Not to sound rude but I don't even know what the rules are. Can't really enforce something that don't exist.

Anyone going to fix this or post me to a up to date rules list?

[lemonyes]

1 day bans are ok. one week for a huge breach of rules. anything else is ridiculous. but now we are getting possible bans forever??? the rules say we must tolerate and respect every other member??? what is the point of the chat if people can't even say what they want to ! ! !

[Fringe Pioneer]

You were always able to get bans forever, and we even have support in the current rules for being banned up to a year, if not forever. The current rules right now say you're supposed to respect others.

I'm starting to wonder that this won't be that radical of a change. Everything you're saying already exists...

[D_M-01]

It would definitely simplify the ruleset and lighten up the load of rule-making.

[Dhoom3]

Permanent bans have never worked here. They always say it's permanent, and it never is; longest I've seen is like three months with somebody that I used to know. Therefore, we should eliminate permanent bans all together, as the threats rarely work at all.
Anyways, the current rule system we have is fine. Forcing all this unnecessary change would just cause a massive dramatic shitstorm any time NMagane or Lemonglitcher get banned for being retarded. As a former troll and respected member, I simply do not see how this will affect the forum in a positive way. If anything, idiotic users will only become dumber.

Still heartily disagree.

[D_M-01]

EltonEyes was banned for around a year, effectively.

[AlchmistFaust]

Jun 30, 2012 21:09:03 GMT D_M-01 said:

EltonEyes was banned for around a year, effectively.

And he even came back? I wouldn't, to be honest. I think that, if you're going to ban someone, ban them for less than a week or forever.

[Fringe Pioneer]

Jun 30, 2012 18:30:00 GMT @Dhoom3 said:

Permanent bans have never worked here. They always say it's permanent, and it never is; longest I've seen is like three months with somebody that I used to know. Therefore, we should eliminate permanent bans all together, as the threats rarely work at all.
Anyways, the current rule system we have is fine. Forcing all this unnecessary change would just cause a massive dramatic shitstorm any time NMagane or Lemonglitcher get banned for being retarded. As a former troll and respected member, I simply do not see how this will affect the forum in a positive way. If anything, idiotic users will only become dumber.

Still heartily disagree.

It almost has, and right now it's as if it is working - notice how the one user I absolutely loathe rarely comes around anymore as himself? You know, the one who can be identified as being him even if he uses a dynamic IP? Granted, that was a permanent ban that everyone else voted shouldn't be permanent, but it worked nevertheless.

As to your next issue, we, right now, continually have massive dramatic...melodrama any time [SUBJECT TROLL HERE] gets banned for a legitimate cause, let alone for a questionable cause. I don't know if you noticed the threads in this board, but the evidence of the melodrama is right there. At least with a change like this, we can hope for different results. After all, the insane are those who keep doing the same things but expect something different every time. I'm waking up from my insanity. Of course, the change doesn't necessarily have to be to Monokrome's proposal so long as the change will be easier and effective.

As a note to everyone else, if you're going to post a fear of what will happen if the proposed change in the opening post is adopted, please at the very least do not cite problems that we already have with the current ruleset. Thank you...