New Rules - Public Input

[unseen1]

3 ) The language that is to be spoken on these boards is English.

Add here that is forbbiden to be abusive to people whos english isnt their strong side.So no mocking from someone who can spell or talk right in english.

P.S.
Like Im misspelling now

[Wolf359]

i like how you are saying ombudsperson

anyway i noticed they were mentioned alot

shouldn't contacting the ombudsperson be less of a first resort

i think you should encourage users to contact the mods and if that doesn't work out then contact the ombudsperson

I believe that contacting the mods(s) directly is always the best way get clarification on general modding issues - and this is stated within the new rules:

In each case of locking or moving topics, then the original author, as the topic 'owner' is the only one who should contact the mod(s) or Ombudsperson if they have an issue with the decision or to request re-opening or re-moving.

As I read it, the only instance in which the first port of call would be the Ombudsperson is the warning appeals process:

Section 8: Appeals process and the Ombudsperson.
Users can appeal warning points by contacting the current Ombudsperson.

This would seem to make sense as the ombudsperson will also be able to get a feel for how much warning is going an and which mods (if any) are perhaps being over-zealous.

[semper]

i will talk to you over msn smoosh about what I think.

[hidden]

i like how you are saying ombudsperson

anyway i noticed they were mentioned alot

shouldn't contacting the ombudsperson be less of a first resort

i think you should encourage users to contact the mods and if that doesn't work out then contact the ombudsperson

I believe that contacting the mods(s) directly is always the best way get clarification on general modding issues - and this is stated within the new rules:

In each case of locking or moving topics, then the original author, as the topic 'owner' is the only one who should contact the mod(s) or Ombudsperson if they have an issue with the decision or to request re-opening or re-moving.

As I read it, the only instance in which the first port of call would be the Ombudsperson is the warning appeals process:

Section 8: Appeals process and the Ombudsperson.
Users can appeal warning points by contacting the current Ombudsperson.

This would seem to make sense as the ombudsperson will also be able to get a feel for how much warning is going an and which mods (if any) are perhaps being over-zealous.

true but sometimes a simple explanation to the mod is enough

seems like its just giving more work to the ombudsperson

[Nuto vixen]

Can I suggest we bring back the rule which states that: "If you are banned from the forums, you are not allowed to post via other un-banned forum users"?

Such has been the case of late with a forum user who got others to post for him, trying to justify his actions, while continuing to slander the moderators and spiel about forum conspiracy and how the "truth was being hidden" or some rubbish.

I just think that when someone is banned, that should mean NO forum contact, or posting, as they have lost the right and privilege to be speaking in our community.

[smooshable]

Can I suggest we bring back the rule which states that: "If you are banned from the forums, you are not allowed to post via other un-banned forum users"?

Such has been the case of late with a forum user who got others to post for him, trying to justify his actions, while continuing to slander the moderators and spiel about forum conspiracy and how the "truth was being hidden" or some rubbish.

I just think that when someone is banned, that should mean NO forum contact, or posting, as they have lost the right and privilege to be speaking in our community.

Well the problem is I think this could get hard to control. There is quite a few ways around it. What I have suggested to the other mods is if people post for a banned user they take responsibility for the content of the post and can receive warnings accordingly.

To everyone else, keep the suggestions coming. I will have a new draft that includes some of the new suggestions ready when I get home tonight.

[HairyMehoff]

The term 'common sense' in section 1:prelude is ambiguous. You cannot fairly judge something acceptable through common sense because different cultures and regions have different ideas of what common sense is.

Section 3a. consequences
will removed --> will be removed

section 4a ii)
reasonable? specify a reasonable amount. you cant warn someone for posting too much if you haven't specified how much is too much. there needs to be a concrete limit.


clarify ombud powers

acceptable language... try using definitions like this.. pretty much covers everything..

What makes material “obscene?” Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any time. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, to be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts); (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Supreme Court has indicated that this test is designed to cover hard-core pornography.

What makes material “indecent?” Indecent material contains sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity. For this reason, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. The FCC has determined, with the approval of the courts, that there is a reasonable risk that children will be in the audience from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., local time. Therefore, the FCC prohibits station licensees from broadcasting indecent material during that period.

Material is indecent if, in context, it depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium. In each case, the FCC must determine whether the material describes or depicts sexual or excretory organs or activities and, if so, whether the material is “patently offensive.”

In our assessment of whether material is “patently offensive,” context is critical. The FCC looks at three primary factors when analyzing broadcast material: (1) whether the description or depiction is explicit or graphic; (2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions or depictions of sexual or excretory organs; and (3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate or shock. No single factor is determinative. The FCC weighs and balances these factors because each case presents its own mix of these, and possibly other, factors.

What makes material “profane?” “Profane language” includes those words that are so highly offensive that their mere utterance in the context presented may, in legal terms, amount to a “nuisance.” In its Golden Globe Awards Order the FCC warned broadcasters that, depending on the context, it would consider the “F-Word” and those words (or variants thereof) that are as highly offensive as the “F-Word” to be “profane language” that cannot be broadcast between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.



sorry about the time references, but i copied it directly from the FCC website for rules about television. but i think it could pretty well apply to this as well

[hidden]

no chance i was gonna read all that

but you know we aren't all american besides banned words seems to be worldwide knowledge

now nuto is right banned users shouldn't be able to have others post for them

i mean i know if i was banned i would get some of my old friends who have long since left the game to get back on their forum accounts and post for me(spam to)

[HairyMehoff]

how bout if the word is banned the admin just go to the settings so that it or variations on it are automatically modded and nobody has to worry about it. otherwise, there should at least be a list of words then because what i find acceptable is undoubtedly different than what others find acceptable.

[HairyMehoff]

if i was admin i wouldnt have rules like that. i believe you can say whatever you want and too bad if there are little kids here. it's the parents jobs to keep them from seeing that kind of stuff, not ours. but you're right im not admin, (prolly for the best) but i was just suggesting it would be easier than having the mods read each post looking for words that could offend someone else with a weaker constitution for language

but thats getting off topic. i wa just suggesting, which is th epoint of this forum

[HairyMehoff]

o well then thanks for the compliment lol

[hidden]

if i was admin i wouldnt have rules like that. i believe you can say whatever you want and too bad if there are little kids here. it's the parents jobs to keep them from seeing that kind of stuff, not ours. but you're right im not admin, (prolly for the best) but i was just suggesting it would be easier than having the mods read each post looking for words that could offend someone else with a weaker constitution for language

but thats getting off topic. i wa just suggesting, which is th epoint of this forum

in my opinion children should be allowed to use the internet(taking away rules like that would only be unfair on them)

wont somebody please think of the children!

[Wolf359]

The term 'common sense' in section 1:prelude is ambiguous. You cannot fairly judge something acceptable through common sense because different cultures and regions have different ideas of what common sense is.

I think the idea of that is that the mods will use common sense in applying the rules - i.e. we shouldn't just rush in at the first instance and start issuing warnings. If the offending post is ambiguous, take the time to think about it and contact the user first.

Section 3a. consequences
will removed --> will be removed

Good spot! Fixed!

section 4a ii)
reasonable? specify a reasonable amount. you cant warn someone for posting too much if you haven't specified how much is too much. there needs to be a concrete limit.

I believe the explanation given already defines what reasonable is, and is tied to topics per forum board rather than individual posts:

The poster has made more topics than is reasonable for one user within the day. (For a rough guide most users won’t start more than two topics in a single forum within a day however if they are all of interest and relevant to the forum then there is some flexibility to this rule.)

i.e. going from experience - if a user has created 6 new topics in 7 different boards in the same day, it could be considered overdoing things a bit. But, again mods must use common sense, and if all topics are valid, or if the user has created 3 new topics in a board rather than 2, then we need to add some realism and/or think about it.

clarify ombud powers

The role of the Ombudsperson is akin to that of a government watchdog - in this case a 'Moderator Watchdog', and as such is responsible to both the moderators and the community for how they conduct themselves within the role. They are there as a representative of the community to ensure that moderators are not overstepping the bounds of their authority or being over-zealous when applying the rules of the forum, and as a point of contact for forum users whom are unable to resolve any issues with the mods.

Equally it needs to be someone who can work with the moderators to ensure that any changes needed, in both the way the mods work or to the forum, are brought about swiftly, and with as little conflict as possible. To this end, the Ombudsperson must be receptive to any issues that users may bring to their attention, but equally they msut not be blind in their duties and need to be able to tell a user if the issue they have with a moderator is misplaced.

The Ombudsperson does not have any power over the moderators, and cannot warn them for what might be considered overstepping their bounds, but can speak to the Supermods/Admins as appropriate to highlight any recurring inconsistencies. The Supermods/Admins can then take action as appropriate.

The best dictionary definition I could find is:

An ombudsman (English plural: ombudsmen) is an official, usually (but not always) appointed by the government or by parliament, who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints reported by individual citizens

acceptable language... try using definitions like this.. pretty much covers everything..

What makes material “obscene?” Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any time. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, to be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts); (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Supreme Court has indicated that this test is designed to cover hard-core pornography.

What makes material “indecent?” Indecent material contains sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity. For this reason, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. The FCC has determined, with the approval of the courts, that there is a reasonable risk that children will be in the audience from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., local time. Therefore, the FCC prohibits station licensees from broadcasting indecent material during that period.

Material is indecent if, in context, it depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium. In each case, the FCC must determine whether the material describes or depicts sexual or excretory organs or activities and, if so, whether the material is “patently offensive.”

In our assessment of whether material is “patently offensive,” context is critical. The FCC looks at three primary factors when analyzing broadcast material: (1) whether the description or depiction is explicit or graphic; (2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions or depictions of sexual or excretory organs; and (3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate or shock. No single factor is determinative. The FCC weighs and balances these factors because each case presents its own mix of these, and possibly other, factors.

What makes material “profane?” “Profane language” includes those words that are so highly offensive that their mere utterance in the context presented may, in legal terms, amount to a “nuisance.” In its Golden Globe Awards Order the FCC warned broadcasters that, depending on the context, it would consider the “F-Word” and those words (or variants thereof) that are as highly offensive as the “F-Word” to be “profane language” that cannot be broadcast between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.



sorry about the time references, but i copied it directly from the FCC website for rules about television. but i think it could pretty well apply to this as well

That last bit is pretty good - but everyone should remember that the 1st Amendment and US law means nothing, or very little, to those of us in Europe, Africa, Asia, Australasia and South America. To keep it as a reference would be useful though.

The way I look at it when modding are if they are words/images/connotations that I wouldn't be happy if I heard my son using/seeing. I did have the idea of producing a list of 'acceptable' words - but again, where is the level?

In general, if the word filter filters it out, then it isn't acceptable - so it is then a breach of forum rules to circumvent the word filter. However, we mods/Admins can't think of everything and so some words/variations of words may not yet be in the word filter. In this case I would hope that as mods we would apply some good modding, highlight the word to the Admins for possible inclusion, edit the offending word in the post and inform the user that it has now been added to teh word filter list.

[smooshable]

I appologise guys I spent a bit longer out yesterday than I though. (Applying for postgraduate studies isn't a lot of fun.)

Am working on the rules atm.

[smooshable]

Ok, I have a new version up. I've tried to take everyone's points on board but obviously it's not possible to do everything. If you're wondering specifically why something you suggested wasn't included PM me.

Any other changes?