|
|
Post by lemonyes on Jul 13, 2012 15:11:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Necrotising Fasciitis on Jul 13, 2012 15:48:56 GMT
oh my god, spark, hahaha
"DON'T ARGUE WITH A MOD"
...he reported veers for doubleposting like a week ago...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jul 13, 2012 16:25:53 GMT
You're right, Lemonyes, there seems to be a problem - why isn't this a week long ban as opposed to a two hour ban? Really, Nmagane knows better than to go up to someone and sexually harass someone. Yes, that's sexual harassment no matter how you meant it to come out, and for that I'm suggesting that V.I.R.O.S. extend the ban to the full punishment that goes along with sexual harassment, minus the 25% warning that's given for doing so directly on the forum...
|
|
|
|
Post by D_M-01 on Jul 13, 2012 16:57:00 GMT
According to the new ruleset, VIROS's actions were completely justified.
|
|
|
|
Post by lemonyes on Jul 13, 2012 17:06:08 GMT
You're right, Lemonyes, there seems to be a problem - why isn't this a week long ban as opposed to a two hour ban? Really, Nmagane knows better than to go up to someone and sexually harass someone. Yes, that's sexual harassment no matter how you meant it to come out, and for that I'm suggesting that V.I.R.O.S. extend the ban to the full punishment that goes along with sexual harassment, minus the 25% warning that's given for doing so directly on the forum... Of course saying this to anyone but Viros would be ok right? Also the ban was for the sexually explicit content according to Viros. The first statement was not the ban worthy one. |
|
|
|
Post by zelkova on Jul 13, 2012 19:00:46 GMT
I love ad block. Sorry but I block the chat asap when I came back. It seem like it shouldn't be part of the forum and yet the mods treat it as such. On a forum I used to go on we stated that 3rd party sites (including our own chat) is not related to the site and you may go into it at your own risk. We simply let the users do whatever they wanted. The dedicated user decided what the rules should be and created his own mods for the chat.
Like maybe it was just a 1/1000 chance that it worked for that forum as the users wasn't that immature but do you really want the current chat to represent the forum as a whole? Based on all of these reports and such I think the comment board is a step above the chat.
I not saying VIROS is right or wrong, I just stating an opinion that the chat should have no relationship with the forums at this point. Sorry if off topic but it seem like the chat is just dragging this forum down as far as I can see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jul 13, 2012 19:26:15 GMT
We used to have people that thought that. It's never been a popular opinion, especially as you never actually go to the chat and as such are in no position to judge it. It's a general discussion chat, not dan-ball related at all, and is the most active and arguably the most important part of the forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlchmistFaust on Jul 13, 2012 20:15:44 GMT
And we're all looking forward to a week of fervorous discussion and drama... Again.
This new ruleset does not offer margin for trolling. Therefore, trolls will be banned. Simple as that. It's not that hard to maintain a civilized, decent conversation in the chat. If you trespass these standards of conversation, you get banned. But every single action that goes according to the rules is met with an appeal...
|
|
|
|
Post by Alonso on Jul 13, 2012 20:44:44 GMT
I think it should not be lifted, although I still hate the new rule set.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jul 13, 2012 20:51:38 GMT
What new rule-set? The one that wasn't officially approved yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jul 13, 2012 21:01:49 GMT
This is still the same ruleset that we have been using since the DBF split from the ODBF, not the ruleset as proposed a little while ago. The one that was proposed failed to get a simple majority, so it died on the floor. There is a rule for sexual harrassment and that rule was invoked.
Remind me again why the proposed ruleset is any different from this existing one, aside from letting mods have more discretion in determining whether something is punishable?
|
|
|
|
Post by Alonso on Jul 13, 2012 21:27:10 GMT
Oh right, sorry, anyway because I mist have missed the harassment rule, I didn't know where this came from and thought that this was a rule made with the one thAy flopped as I didn't know, my bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Volt on Jul 14, 2012 15:23:53 GMT
I'm going to quote the rules:
Sexual Harassment
Risk: Varies
Sexual harassment is anything to sexually insult another member. We know of this behavior and we don't tolerate it. Minor offenses may receive verbal warnings, and major offenses will result in 25% warning and a one week ban.
Therefore, the ban is completely justified [in fact, VIROS should extend the ban]
|
|
|
|
Post by Alonso on Jul 14, 2012 16:06:36 GMT
I am not disagreeing I just happened to miss the rule and thus hit the wrong conclusion.
|
|
[M:977802]
