|
Post by xShadowLordx on Dec 20, 2009 19:31:24 GMT -5
Meh, at first I thought it was a good idea, but I've lost interest at this point. Besides Fox, no one else really seems to care that much either, judging by this thread's activity...
|
|
|
Post by FoxtrotZero on Dec 22, 2009 10:16:12 GMT -5
Well, i know threads sometimes die out without valid reason. There seemed enough activity to warrant it before, but if noone else is really interested, i'm not going to bother lobbying.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Dec 24, 2009 20:48:35 GMT -5
Hey, I am. I go missing for a bit and it dies?
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Dec 26, 2009 1:06:44 GMT -5
Oh, hi Qwerty. *rummages through a pile of junk* What's this we have here? Can it be? It seems I've found my lost interest! Let's get back to business, Qwert.
|
|
|
Post by FoxtrotZero on Dec 29, 2009 2:31:31 GMT -5
So that makes three of us?
Well then, what do we do now?
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Dec 29, 2009 13:45:17 GMT -5
Well, I think we've already decided that it should have a 200-post requirement. Anything else we need to do?
|
|
|
Post by FoxtrotZero on Dec 29, 2009 14:02:24 GMT -5
I'd say three staff is enough to warrant it's creation. The only real problem now is determining if anyone is set against it. Oh yes, i propose we do NOT allow members with greater than, say, a 25 or 50 percent Warning level access the Mature Board whatsoever. The Mature Board is a board with laxed rules, and is a privelage, not a right. I say that those people who have showed inability to cope with the rules as they already are should not be offered the freedom of a board with even less rules. I also don't think we came to a direct conclusion as to what should be and should not be allowed in the Mature board, unless we did. My suggestion; Furthermore, the mature board is the mature board. Maturity being required, i think we need to be lax about the content that can be placed there. The purpose of this board is for people to maturely discuss content that would be generally if not outright unacceptable elsewhere, and not to be another closed can with a little different ruleset. As compeled as I am to lobby for the contrary, there still needs to be lines, and these lines need to be drawn at some point or another. I.E., Before we hit Hardcore Pornography. But being a mature section where mature people are expected to discuss mature content, alot of our general rules (including ones regarding such topics as discriminations and nudity) can be pulled back a little bit (this is mainly my logical side speaking. Enjoy it while you can). Furthermore, we will need to have a very in-depth and visible disclaimer regarding that the board DOES contain content that may offend certain persons, and that people are intering this section and viewing its contents of their own informed will and accord.
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Dec 31, 2009 15:04:23 GMT -5
Alright, here's the thing. TheListo posted this code in the High Staff category, that allows us to restrict board access to people with a certain number of posts:
<script language="JavaScript"><!-- // Only viewy boardity with certain number of postitys By T.J. // Original: [url]support.proboards.com[/url]
var boardid="boardID" // ID of the board only accesible with an amount of posts var numposts="#posts" // Number of posts required to see board
if(!location.href.match('action=') && !location.href.match('board=')){ var ah=document.getElementsByTagName('a') for(a=0;a<ah.length;a++){ if(ah[a].href.match('board='+boardid) && !ah[a].href.match('thread=') && !document.cookie.match('posts=')){ ah[a].parentNode.parentNode.parentNode.style.display='none' } if(document.cookie.match('posts=')){ if(ah[a].href.match('board='+boardid) && !ah[a].href.match('thread=') && document.cookie.split('posts=')[1].split(';')[0]<numposts) { ah[a].parentNode.parentNode.parentNode.style.display='none' } } } } if(location.href.match('board='+boardid) && document.cookie.split('posts=')[1].split(';')[0]<numposts){ var td=document.getElementsByTagName('td') for(i=0;i<td.length;i++){ td[i].style.display='none'; } document.write('<center><h2>You do not have enough posts to access this board.</h2><a href="'+location.href.split('?')[0]+'">Go to the home page</a><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>') } if(location.href.match('action=viewprofile') || location.href.match('thread=')){ var ahh=document.getElementsByTagName('a') for(q=0;q<ahh.length;q++){ if(ahh[q].href.match('viewprofile&user='+pb_username)){ document.cookie='posts='+ahh[q].parentNode.parentNode.innerHTML.split('Posts: ')[1].split(/</)[0] break; } } } // --> </script>
I was just about to implement this code a minute ago, but then I had second thoughts. In my opinion, we shouldn't restrict it to a certain number of posts, because--and I'm not pointing any fingers--there are some people with over 200 posts who might not be considered mature enough to be allowed to use the board. And as we acquire more members in the future, the same thing will happen again.
Given that mature content is to be discussed in this board, we can't just assume that people who have 200 posts are mature enough to use the board. We can't just automatically allow access to people with a certain number of posts. Instead of generalizing, we should treat this as a case-by-case basis. I propose, instead of a post requirement, we make the board password-protected, evaluate all our active members, and handpick the ones we think are mature enough to deserve the password.
What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by FoxtrotZero on Dec 31, 2009 18:15:32 GMT -5
I disagree with the Handpick Method.
We have alot of members and, while only a handful are active enough, we are ambitious. If our member count suddenly soars like a Shortsword Bomber fired out of a MAC (Damn, that would be akward) its going to fail. There is also the obvious problem of a password being leaked.
I think we need to use the same system we use on the rest of the forums. The Mature Board will have its own rules.
If we are all on the same page, the rules in the mature board will be Lax compared to those of the forum itself. However, that means offences are conciderably more serious. Any wrongdoing will be swiftly countered, and patroling of the rules will be much more strict.
Like I said before. The Mature Board is a board with laxed rules, and is a privelage, not a right. I say that those people who have showed inability to cope with the rules as they already are should not be offered the freedom of a board with even less rules. (Thank you, Copy and Paste). Those with a high enough Warning Level should be automatically restricted from the mature board.
We should also use the same three strikes system. Three bans from the Mature Board (As in, specific MB Bannhammzor, not a Warning Level Auto-Restriction) and its over. They'll have to show us that they can tolerate the board or they won't be let to the board.
Unlike the Special Board, the Mature Board is to be a secure board with designated realms of content, and is therefore patroled strictly for reasons. The Special Board is pretty much anonymous and dead, so i think its worth, hell, destroying.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Dec 31, 2009 18:31:38 GMT -5
So, the Mature Board would only be open to those who have maintained good behavior, i.e. didn't go above a particular threshold warning?
When people get banned specifically from the Mature Board, how long should the ban be?
Also, if we restrict access to those who display a certain warning level or smaller, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the Mature Board? Wasn't the Mature Board made to eliminate the need for posting on chat, despite that the Mature Board is only for mature topics handled maturely?
|
|
|
Post by FoxtrotZero on Dec 31, 2009 18:37:28 GMT -5
General, pardon me, but did you just pull that out of your ass?
I don't know where you got the idea that the mature board was designed to replace the chat, and never will i support removal or replacement of the chat.
As for how long the ban from the Mature Board is to be, this is all relevant to the severity of the offence and so forth. These are to be decided when the MB's ruleset is decided.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Dec 31, 2009 18:51:49 GMT -5
Personally i still really do not understand why we need a mature board. It would be pretty inactive IMO
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Dec 31, 2009 19:08:27 GMT -5
No, I am not talking about the Mature Board replacing the chat, I'm just talking about people having an alternate place to talk about sensitive subjects and thereby cleaning the chat in the process. I never assumed the chat would be taken away, as much as that can be desirable on some times...
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Dec 31, 2009 19:37:08 GMT -5
True, Veers, it will give people a place to talk about sensitive subjects. However, I don't think it will affect the amount of talk about those subjects on chat. This board will be a place for people to discuss mature subjects in a mature manner, whereas on chat, sadly, mature subjects are too often discussed in an immature manner.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Dec 31, 2009 19:42:29 GMT -5
In that case, I ask what TheListo and GGoodie ask: why create this board?
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Dec 31, 2009 19:44:26 GMT -5
The purpose of this board is for people to maturely discuss content that would be generally if not outright unacceptable elsewhere, and not to be another closed can with a little different ruleset. That is why.
|
|
|
Post by FoxtrotZero on Dec 31, 2009 20:29:07 GMT -5
Serious Debate is not a board that specifically warrants any laxed rules or higher maturity, it is simply a board designed for more intellectual content. In no way the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Dec 31, 2009 20:31:02 GMT -5
Yes, that's a nice way of putting it. The Serious Debate board is for "intellectual content" while the Mature Board would be for "mature content".
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Dec 31, 2009 20:33:01 GMT -5
I have to agree with FoxtrotZero's pointing out of the False Analogy Fallacy; nonetheless, I still do not believe a Mature Board would be necessary (or active, as GGoodie pointed out earlier) unless it took away immature discussion of mature topics from the chat.
It is liable to end up like the Special Board and the member group categories...
|
|
KuraiOorora
Supreme Member
{S=39}[M:575]
Grand Mist Samurai
Posts: 322
|
Post by KuraiOorora on Dec 31, 2009 20:38:35 GMT -5
Here is my opinion on a 'Mature Board.'
It would be nearly impossible to have users that are not of proper age kept out of the board. There are various websites such as Newgrounds that have warnings before entering mature pages. Perhaps we could have a warning page telling the user that they must be of proper age and asking them is they are so? There would be a 'Yes I am of age' where they will proceed, or a 'No, I am not of age' and will be directed back to the previous page. There is no way for sure we can truly keep out those underage, but at least we can make sure they were warned so we cannot get questioned...
Furthermore, it would depend on what is shared within said mature board. Would there be graphic depictions of things such as sexual intercourse, violence (which may in fact settle the guro issue), and other potentially traumatizing things to younger audiences that are made with video, imagery or in plain text? If so, I see a mature board as a valid place to put these things.
Either way, I doubt the addition of a 'Mature Board' will affect normal behavior on the forum. Yet aren't there other places besides this forum where you can discuss such matters? I would understand if it would be things such as advice (including sexual, political, or otherwise). So, as a concluding statement, I'm not opposed to a mature board, and I would consider adding one if the vote comes down to a tiebreaker.
|
|