Page 1 of 5
What would you say to a new rule?
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:28 pm
by Mystake
Masking;
Any form of masking is grounds for an immediate warn, masking bigger more vulgar words that I won't mask here for the sake of not being a hypocrite for a change will result in a minimum 1day to 7day suspension.
Why?
Because masking in itself is blatantly breaking the rules. You know when you mask that you break the rules and its a conscious effort. It's a problem that some may have seen that person a masks and gets a warn while person b masks but doesnt get a warn.
Would this be a fair way to end it? Yes, the forums are for fun, but then we can have clean fun too right?
Re: What would you say to a new rule?
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 12:21 am
by goodie
I thought this was implied by the rules anyway...
But if not, then yes, it should be, most defintly.
-Goodie
Re: What would you say to a new rule?
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:30 am
by urogard
goodie wrote:I thought this was implied by the rules anyway...
But if not, then yes, it should be, most defintly.
-Goodie
it was implied by the rules afaik but it doesn't get treated harshly

Re: What would you say to a new rule?
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:52 am
by hidden
i have no objections it'll be a good way to make the forum fair for all
by the way would there be a list? because im getting paranoid that a mistake will lead to a suspension
Re: What would you say to a new rule?
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:54 am
by Mystake
urogard wrote:it was implied by the rules afaik but it doesn't get treated harshly

Exactly. One person gets a warning, the next person doesn't. This here lays out the groundwork that EVERYONE will get warned. Anyone who doesn't, gets lucky that a mod didn't see it? (hence the report feature).
As for afraid of getting suspended for it... I think bans may become an administrative power in the near future, or it may not. I'd think that most mods are fair reasonable in the suspensions though.
Re: What would you say to a new rule?
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:21 am
by Hansbrough
this may be a silly question, but what do you mean by "masking?"
Re: What would you say to a new rule?
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:44 am
by Teal'auc of the Void
Taxonomist3 wrote:this may be a silly question, but what do you mean by "masking?"
Things like a$$, f*ck, d*ck... you get the meaning, right...
Teal'auc
PS: Now I should mod myself 
Re: What would you say to a new rule?
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:54 am
by Eriond
masking is the use of characters to disguise swearing and shortened versions of phrases. like Teal'uac's post.
Shortened version are things like:
rofl (rolls on floor laughing)
rofl is an abbreiviation i have used to demonstrate the shortened versions as i wont say the swearing versions, i'm sure you should all be bright enough to figure out the ones that would get you a warning.
Also you do not need a new rule for this just an addendum to the current swearing rule
Re: What would you say to a new rule?
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:02 am
by homer1475
who died and made mystake the boss?
shouldnt rules or addendum's to the rules be posted by mods or admins?
taking masking out is kinda stupid since anyone over the age of 5 has used and or seen all this before. im pretty sure everyone here is over the age of 5...
wait..... some act under the age of 5 so i guess its ok
Re: What would you say to a new rule?
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:05 am
by dardar
i wouldnt mind this being a new rule or w/e
Re: What would you say to a new rule?
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:08 am
by Juliette
homer1475 wrote:who died and made mystake the boss?
shouldnt rules or addendum's to the rules be posted by mods or admins?
Valid commentary. How was the ombudsmans function defined again?
Re: What would you say to a new rule?
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:36 am
by Rienna
As far as I knew or was concerned, Ombudsman was the wrong word to use anyways.
An actual Ombudsman is supposed to be a negotiator or mediator between two parties. Mystakes job is to be the players voice and representative to the mods when the players feel the mods aren't doing their job correctly.
*shrugs* beats me where that means he gets to come in and make rules like this.
Personally, as a mod, I know that I just edit for masking, and I only warn for masking if it's the same person doing it constantly. Most people don't know what the "list" is and some people don't even realize that the little f in that 8 letter acronym is a swear mask, and are horribly sorry for it when I point it out. How could I punish them for that?
*looks crossly at Mystake*
It's not being biased to not suspend people for masking. It's giving them a fair chance.
Re: What would you say to a new rule?
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:42 am
by hidden
ok i just changed my mind rienna is right theres no need for suspension
ok insane question here but does omg count?
Re: What would you say to a new rule?
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:43 am
by buck
Well that, and if you start suspending people for masking..
this will happen :
-You suspend people for any type of spam
-You suspend people for typeing lol
-You suspend people for useing smiley faces
-You suspend people for useing humour
Where does the madness end? No, I am not a nazi , I will warn someone if they repeatidly mask, But what you want mystake is unrealistic, Make realistic rules that will actually work, because this rule will be implemented over my dead body.
Hidden : No OMG doesnt count

But apparently OMG would, OVERKILL .
Re: What would you say to a new rule?
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:15 am
by Hansbrough
oh well masking -- I don't really have a problem with it. Honestly I don't have problem with cussing in general, but heh, I'm for freedom of speech and whatnot too.