|
|
Post by microfarad on Mar 24, 2010 22:28:44 GMT -5
Okay, here we go, staff are now specifically condoning a dirty chat...
I mean, a loooot of you guys were on talking about a "blue waffle". I have no idea what it is NOR DO I WANT TO. But somehow it got everybody on the topic of whores, sexuality, something smelling really bad, pantsing people, and ... dog hairs??? Okay, I say enough is enough. I'm just N00B staff, and I know it. I don't want to be a jerk about this or anything, but really, I'm a chillax dude and this made me uncomfortable. I could recruit about 3 people right now if the chat wasn't so dirty. As it is, I would never ask my friends to come here. And how many people are we driving away? So, I think we should institute a rather strict new policy...
No click at your own risk... If it's too dirty for some people to stomach than it shouldn't be mentioned.
No use of sexual organ names, be they proper or slang, unless specifically quoting an infraction... Yeah, no saying "dick"
No use of words denoting sexual activity... "sex" "oral sex" whatever, don't say it.
No overuse of profanity... The chat shouldn't be full of "Belgium" "Shit" or even "Crap" (though more leniency on "crap" is permissible)
Three warnings and then a ban. That includes staff. Does everyone agree? Any more rules I forgot?
|
|
|
|
Post by FoxtrotZero on Mar 24, 2010 22:56:11 GMT -5
I'm going to exercize my position as superior and say 'No'.
To begin with, the first is already in place, but noone wanted to be a hardass, so it didn't happen. Its not supposed to be allowed.
The second, third, and fourth have been tried several time. Yes. Riots follow. Its really not worth it.
The last one is a little bigger than this. We have rules as to how long certain infractions are supposed to be worth, and its the job of a moderator to determine the more obscure cases. Nothing is ever cut-and-dry, black and white.
Sorry. But no matter how hard you try, and how hard you push, its not going to happen. Its worth noting that, in the state you saw it? Thats not how it usually is. And yes, you are new. You were never here in the golden days, and likely you're not accustomed to how some people like to roll. I'm sorry if you disapprove, but these are the rules as they were set.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Mar 25, 2010 8:57:01 GMT -5
I agree with Fox and Listo. It's been tried and has already been put into place. This is why I have been suggesting the creation of a spam chat: We can move that sort of stuff there. No need for riots when they have someone to talk like that.
Also, about crap. That's not even a swear word, why bother censoring it? Anyway, we can censor those words on chat, but people find ways around it.
Oh, and one more problem: Staff can't be banned there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Mar 25, 2010 9:05:53 GMT -5
Same thing we've been doing, I guess. Plus a possible spam chat, but I lost that thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by microfarad on Mar 25, 2010 11:36:58 GMT -5
How about we create a Spam chat and be uber lenient on it. But people on the normal chat get one warning then the boot?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vertigo on Mar 25, 2010 15:41:23 GMT -5
If spam chat does get made, we should make sure everybody knows about it. If a member who knows about it spams excessively, that meaning three to five posts of complete nonsense, we link them. If they spam even once more, they get a tempo-ban.
That's my opinion, any others?
|
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Mar 25, 2010 16:22:48 GMT -5
The spam chat just might work if we act very leniently with it (as if we didn't exist, almost) and act with Hitlerian efficiency in the ODBF chat. One warning, and then a ban. How long of a ban should it be, keeping in mind it ought to be temporary? Will one hour be strict enough?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vertigo on Mar 25, 2010 17:31:33 GMT -5
Actually, I think most people can live with being banned for an hour. Is there anybody that attached to the chat to have absolutely nothing else to do?
Okay, I say three hours. That might be harsh, but it might get us somewhere. Again, any other opinions?
|
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Mar 25, 2010 17:53:02 GMT -5
Actually, I think most people can live with being banned for an hour. Is there anybody that attached to the chat to have absolutely nothing else to do? Okay, I say three hours. That might be harsh, but it might get us somewhere. Again, any other opinions? Usually whenever I ban someone--for any minor offense (that's pretty much everything except porn)--I just ban them for the rest of the day and then unban them when I log on the next day. It's a lot more convenient, because then I don't have to remember what time it was and remind myself, or another mod, to go back on in a couple hours to unban them. You might think it's a bit harsh for minor offenses, but I actually am quite a bit more lenient than other mods. I give 4-5 warnings before I actually ban someone. So I think that lengthy time period is more than justified. The point I'm trying to make here is, basically, the length of the ban should depend on how many times you warned them, so it can vary from mod to mod. |
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Mar 25, 2010 18:03:57 GMT -5
What of our proposed case, after we create a spam chat, in which time someone should only be warned once on the normal chat before being banned?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vertigo on Mar 25, 2010 18:22:06 GMT -5
I think that's what we should do. One warning, then a ban.
|
|
|
|
Post by FoxtrotZero on Mar 25, 2010 22:30:50 GMT -5
Actually, I think most people can live with being banned for an hour. Is there anybody that attached to the chat to have absolutely nothing else to do? Okay, I say three hours. That might be harsh, but it might get us somewhere. Again, any other opinions? No. No, No, No. I mean, Yes. I am one of those people. But this policy is crap. It really is. Think about it. If there is a provided chat with less rules than ever, and the main chat because constrictive to the way people like to act, What are they going to do? If you think they'll merely adjust their behavior, you are mistaken. Its an absolute; you can't give water in a container somewhere to go, and then make the container smaller, because it just goes elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Mar 26, 2010 9:16:21 GMT -5
And that "somewhere" is the spam chat. We cannot crack down as easily right now because they have nowhere to go. If we have a spam chat, we can actually refer people to it.
Also, TSL, please remember to post it in Chat Ban Records, in case you can't log in. Also, isn't that long a ban a bit harsh for, say, flaming? Chatango can flagban people for three hours, maybe we should make bans about the same length.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vertigo on Mar 26, 2010 14:53:22 GMT -5
No. No, No, No. I mean, Yes. I am one of those people. But this policy is crap. It really is. Think about it. If there is a provided chat with less rules than ever, and the main chat because constrictive to the way people like to act, What are they going to do? If you think they'll merely adjust their behavior, you are mistaken. Its an absolute; you can't give water in a container somewhere to go, and then make the container smaller, because it just goes elsewhere. Adjust behavior? There's nobody on chat who spams 24/7. Spamming is not a main part of behavior for most. They can act many other ways, and if the spam chat were made, they can unleash their 'spammy' side there. |
|
|
|
Post by Vertigo on Mar 26, 2010 17:38:52 GMT -5
Should we have a vote?
|
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Mar 26, 2010 17:49:31 GMT -5
Let's.  I vote no to the Spam Chat. |
|
|
|
Post by Vertigo on Mar 26, 2010 18:00:02 GMT -5
We could at least see if it works.
I vote for spam chat.
|
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Mar 26, 2010 18:48:18 GMT -5
No. No, No, No. I mean, Yes. I am one of those people. But this policy is crap. It really is. Think about it. If there is a provided chat with less rules than ever, and the main chat because constrictive to the way people like to act, What are they going to do? If you think they'll merely adjust their behavior, you are mistaken. Its an absolute; you can't give water in a container somewhere to go, and then make the container smaller, because it just goes elsewhere. I completely agree with Tyler's Statement. I see no point in creating a "Spam Chat" As was aforementioned, there would be a place for this spam to go: the Spam Chat. We would create a spam chat, enforce rules on the regular chat with Hitlerian brutality, and be extremely slack on the spam chat. Naturally, to minimize conflicts, users will bring their spam from the normal chat to the spam chat.  |
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Mar 26, 2010 19:11:32 GMT -5
I really don't think we should have a whole separate chat just to cater to people's childish spam needs. That's what the Spam Board is for.  |
|
|
|
Post by Vertigo on Mar 26, 2010 19:39:16 GMT -5
I really don't think we should have a whole separate chat just to cater to people's childish spam needs. That's what the Spam Board is for. Then you could just as easily say, 'Why do we need a general chat when we have a general talk board?' Chats have a different quality to them. |
|
[img src="http://i25.[tinypic].com/10ygymt.png"]
[M:7000]
