Feedback on FF rules

[Dynamics]

what I'd like to know here is, what makes these forums such a sacred place as compared to talking ingame for example? both are publicly available. people "name names" all the time ingame (and on the officials, btw.) and to me it seems to cause no problems.

people seem to like "flaming" (god I hate that word how it's used now.) no problem ingame, or behind the flamed person's back, but they're terrified when everyone can see their real opinion?

afraid of the site's reputation? how does that work? if someone comes on to a forum and sees some person making a post about them, are they going to think "oh, damn that forum"? they are most likely going to look at the poster. as it should be. you say something, you take responsibility for it. not some mod, let alone a whole site.

to me, the whole idea of a forum is to have the convenience of passing along info or otherwise conversing with people when you cannot do it in realtime. the job of moderators in this is to keep things in order. in order means things like moving threads, closing them when requested by thread starter, and so on... not bossing the posters around.

also, I find it rather questionable that you bring up the validity of this "rule" after a person has already been banned for it. nice one.

My point with the site isn't a strong one, and I just added it in for the dumb one liner LOL. But yeah back to the discussion.

I believe that naming name's isn't constructive with public ranting. Doing it on a personal level is a little more acceptable then doing it on a public scale, because it's personal. People talk to their friends to either gain perspective or to just feel better about themselves. It's not right to talk behind someone's back, it isn't right to be dishonest to them, but it happens. Yeah, people are afraid to confront at times, and for their own reason. Confrontations can stir a lot of emotions. People naturally avoid that kind of thing, even if it might not always be for the best.

We can't control what happens in-game or on the officials, but we do get a say in what happens on this fansite. Whilst in-game and on the officials stating names might seem to have no effect in terms of how both function, I personally cringe whenever I see someone publicly mentioning a name. If someone in-game or on the officials shouts "so and so" is a bad person for scamming or anything, I genuinely ask to myself "what do you gain out of doing that?"

I still think the rule of not naming name's is overall okay. It might be too strict here and there, particularly with obvious scammers and such - and I suppose that's the key here, finding that compromise between when it's okay to mention names' and when it isn't. I personally reckon it's better not to name people when all you're looking for is to rant, which is essentially what All the Rage is for.

If a good medium can be found between the two then all the better.

[Lady-Loki]

Naming names just opens up too much potential for threads full of name calling & anger.

yeah, my bad.

said 16 reposts were caused by the order to remove the name from the thread though, and moreso, the editing of the thread by a moderator.

And "said 16 reposts were caused by the request to remove the name from the thread".

And the spamming of threads was a direct and blatant disrespect for mod actions taken in response to her failing to abide by a forum rule that, whether anyone agrees with it being fair or applicable or not, is a forum rule. She can't break the rule just because she doesn't agree with it

So, the said 16 reposts were caused by her immature reaction to having a rule she could not disrespect & disobey. It was not caused by any "order" or any editing of the thread.

[Lilian]

yes indeed, but the point remains the same. she did not spam for fun. it was caused by this rule. that's why there's now a thread, THIS thread, that is about changing the rule. mincing my words will not change anything. :P

direct and blatant disrespect... you'd think this is a police state now, not an internet forum.

EDIT: btw, well put on your last post, Mike. Agreed with most all of that.

[Lady-Loki]

yes indeed, but the point remains the same. she did not spam for fun. it was caused by this rule. that's why there's now a thread, THIS thread, that is about changing the rule. mincing my words will not change anything. :P

direct and blatant disrespect... you'd think this is a police state now, not an internet forum.

EDIT: btw, well put on your last post, Mike. Agreed with most all of that.

But the point also remains - whether you agree with the rule or not you have to abide by the rule. And direct & blatant disrespect is unbecoming under any state. The US is not a police state but if you get stopped for driving 50 in a zone posted 35 and the police officer tells you he is gonna let you off with a warning but to keep your speed to 35 and your response is "I disagree with the speed posted. I think 50 is acceptable so I will not comply" I can guaran-dam-tee you he will write you a ticket for exceeding the posted speed. And take that to court and the judge will uphold the ticket and you will pay a fine.

Again, whether you agree with the rule or not you have to abide by the rule. And there has always been a no-spam rule so she tried to continue breaking the first rule by breaking another. Take this back to the police officer and when he tickets you and you disagree with that and refuse to appear in court you will then find an arrest warrant out for you, because you can't choose to ignore the ticket just because you disagree with the posted speed.

You don't justify breaking a rule by breaking another.

[Blaaaaaaaah]

May I remind you all that this is not a thread to discuss about the temp-banning of the spammed threads.

However, if you are against the idea of leaving 16 duplicate threads open for replies to get a point across - then please give your valid reason for us and we will look into it.

Like I said before: Talk with the Mods and Site Suggestions and Feedbacks are here for a reason. Give us your suggestions in a proper way and you won't be banned. The last banning was not based on the fact she broke the All the Rage rule - but the fact that 16 unnecessary duplicate threads were made. Sure, it caught our attention alright - which is probably a good thing, but our attention could have be caught without the need to do that.

---

Now, on with the feedback, thank you.

[Enraya]

But, my point was with naming on facts was okay o-o Not flaming.

Yes, you can just say an action, but I honestly don't see why you need to censor out a name. It's just a simple fact. Someone did it. You're not voicing an opinion on it, it's a simple statement of what someone did and it's up to others what they want to make out of it.

Flaming, however, I think I agree with what dyna said~ o: It's better to rage about actions than certain people.

But if a fact's a fact, there's no need to hide it.

[Dynamics]

Yeah but what I'm worried about is drawing the line where fact is fact. It's like Ralath said in that other post, it's a difficult decision. I suppose that's why 100% censorship was implemented instead, because it saves the trouble of sorting out the grey areas where things aren't black and white.

Edit: BTW I KNEW YOU TALKED ABOUT IT IN YOUR FIRST POST, IT'S WHAT INSPIRED ME

V

[Enraya]

That goes back to what I said in my first post @__@; I also commented on Ralath's post, LOL. It's hard to distinguish and more work for mods.

I'd just like to say a fact without having to censor half of it. If I have a thought I won't post a name, but I think trying to cover up something that has already been proven through various ways is pretty dull at times.

[Hessah]

I dont think its about "more work for Mods" as such, it's more about where the Mods should be standing in gray areas between "fact" and "friction".

If a mod allows "this" and didnt allow "that", when "this" and "that" are very similar, how should mods decide wat is fine? We can say leave it to the Mods judgement, but, some people doesnt seem to like the Mod's judgement of "what is OK", so here we are.

If i really want to find out a name I PM the person, but I believe most of the time it does not need to made public.

[Blaaaaaaaah]

I'll just talk a little about why we came up with the rule in the first place.

Note: This is not a post telling you that what I'm gonna say is the "final say", but just to give you all a little more perspective on why we decided that in more detail - because I believe all we've said so far on the public forums was "to prevent flaming". And I repeat, it is NOT the final say or anything, just a post to bring up the Pros of having the rule in a bit more detail (since the Cons are listed and talked about a lot more so far).

The main reason has actually been stated already - it is hard to distinguish which "truth" is the "real truth". During high school English class, we had a whole term on the subject "Truth". I used to think it was really crazy, I mean, having to spend 10 weeks learning about "Truth", but I can see why they did that now.

It is not so much too much work for the mods - but more of what is the "truth", the "real" perspective, the "fact", and what is not? The people on one side of the story sees a certain "truth" while the people on the other side sees something else as "truth" - hence it is difficult for us to draw a line because things like this are really subjective to each individual's perspective. Is it "fair" to bring out screenshots of one person, when the other have no idea they are being posted and thus are not given the opportunity to defend themselves? Cases like scammers and hackers, of course, are probably an exception, but we are mainly worried about rants relating to in game behaviours.

Take an example.

Me and Yosei are training a spot. Rightclaw and Fullback comes along and decides to try and take our spots and start ksing. Yosei and I tells them to go away, but it doesn't work. Hence we proceed to ks them back in attempt to try and make them shoo. Rightclaw screens us ksing them, goes to a forum which Yosei and I have no knowledge of, and posts about it there. "Yosei and Blaaaahs are KSers! Proven in this screenshot. Watch out for these ksers". Now it is wrong that Yosei and I ksed back - yes I see that. But hey, the people reading on the thread are only getting ONE side of the story.

I am against people getting one side of the story. It is often the thing that makes people dislike each other for the wrong reasons.

Like a previous member had mentioned, what do we gain from naming names? The Rant forum was originally created for people give out rants, not trying to single a particular person out of the community because they did something wrong. Yes, they may have done something wrong, but as the community grows, there shall be countless of "bad" people appearing, how many can we single out? And how many can we say for sure that the names have been named for a justified reason?

Now, this is the internet where all types of people appear. Mature people, immature people, old people, young people, intelligent people, the not-so-intelligent people, the open minded ones, the close minded ones - the list is endless. We had placed the rule out there in the first place because we cannot assume that only mature and intelligent people come to this forum. We have to take in mind there are young people, those who are inexperienced to the internet, those who are the ones that easily catch on the "flame". Hence we put the rule out there to prevent these type of people to come here, get upset themselves, and then respond aggressively and upset others.

We, the mods, were (and at the moment, are) not agreeing to the method of wait-till-a-"flame"-breaks-out-before-addressing-the-problem. Why must we wait for our members to get upset? Why must we wait till our members yell and verbally abuse each other before we step in?

As for site's reputation - we care about that. How can we not? Why do we mod this forum? We mod this forum for the members. We want this forum to grow for our members. And for this forum to grow, it must maintain a good reputation. Now, I am addressing the issue about people coming here to hate the site rather than the poster him/herself when they are being named on the forum. Yes, the person being named should just hold it against the thread started, but when more members reply to it (and probably in most cases, agree to it), then they will take it against the forum. Also, like I said before, it is the internet - all types of people come here. Whether they are or are not supposed to look at things like that - we can't stop how they feel and they will post their feelings and probably upset others as well as themselves.

Now, what will they do? They will turn their back on us, go to another forum, and speak about this fansite in a degrading way. While we, on the other hand, have no idea they are speaking bad about us - and we are not given the opportunity to defend ourselves - which is very much similar to what would happen if names are named on the forum. See how that happens? I am not saying it is the same, but, it is similar to a certain extent.

I think that is almost everything I had wanted to say. I can't really remember much because I am really tired atm, but I want to repeat: this post is NOT made to be read as a "final say" thing, but just to give everyone an insight on what has been said in the mod forums from before. I guess my main point was that we had not thrown the rule out just like "that", but we did discuss and think it through - though we are up for more changes if it is needed.