Feedback on FF rules

[Lilian]

It really shouldn't be that hard to discern between the multiple different ways a person can be mentioned.

As an example, let's assume that the text inside the quotes (") is a thread posted by a member.

Ex. A: "I was in the pvp battlegrounds yesterday and was grinding, good exp, all that, but then all of a sudden this person called <insertname> invaded my room and started cussing me when I politely asked him to find another spot..."

Ex. B: "I was scammed yesterday when <insertname> took my weapon which was supposed to be enhanced, but he never gave it back. I heard he has done it to other people as well..."

Ex. C: "<insertname> is a *****!! I hope he dies! <insertname> and everybody in his guild is ghey, and if I see them or any of their idiot friends again, I'll r*pe their pets. (continue with derogatory words or alternate ways of abuse)"

Is there seriously no difference between Examples A & B as opposed to Example C? In all of these cases the people who read the thread can make up their own mind whether to believe the poster or not. Yes, even in example A and B. The poster can also provide proof if such is available, but the point is, why erase out these things entirely?

Example C is an obvious case of where action needs to be taken, whereas I see examples A and B as perfectly valid threads.

[Dynamics]

I think the problem is that it's still subjective in nature, no matter how detailed, well written, or formal it may be. While C may be easy to discern as a post that needs action against it, A and B are still iffy. Perhaps not to you, but to me I think they are.

In example A, the person in question could've had a bad day. Who knows.
In example B, the person in question is guilty for scamming, but so is the self proclaimed victim for being scammed.

And that's the problem, there's gonna be different views on what's right and what's wrong. I would think you're likely to disagree with how I think about example A and B, and I know it would be simple to change them to better adjust to what you're trying to say but in the end we're likely to run into these situations.

In regards to the rule, I still standby the idea that it should either be carefully evolved or remain as it is.

[Lilian]

yeah, I see what you're saying. There's always as many views to a story as there are sides. Still, I guess just the idea of censoring doesn't sit well with me.

Haha, I was mostly just talking out of interest as to what the reasons are behind this rule. The rule itself does not really affect me because I'm not one to make threads about events ingame, whatever they may be. Hence I don't really care in the end if it stays as is or changes. Well I do CARE, otherwise I wouldn't be interested, but you know what I mean. My life doesn't depend on it. xD

And now I gotta go. o: at least there was something interesting enough today to post about!! *win dance*

Edit in response to post below: rofl, yeah KT, fair enough!! xD

[Blaaaaaaaah]

It really shouldn't be that hard to discern between the multiple different ways a person can be mentioned....

Like I said before - we are getting one side of the story. On a personal note, I refuse to take sides or decide what is the real "truth" before I see BOTH sides of the story - therefore I find it difficult to decide what is the "real truth". But, I personally believe there are no "real truths" out there - be it on the internet, or be it in real life. Everything I take in, everything I believe, everything I see or hear, are taken in my own perspective, the way I see it, the way I want to see it.

One thing I must note - in the examples you used, you had clearly made a difference in the way someone expressed their post. Had the person in Ex. A say "zomgg <insertname> cam into da room and KSED mee!!!!!!!!!11", and had the person say in Ex. C "<insertname> is not nice. I don't think his guild is very nice either, I have seen them being inconsiderate to others. If I see those people again, I surely wouldn't want to be nice to them either." - then it would seem different, yes?

This is one thing I always have to keep in mind for myself - it is the internet. Lots of miscommunication happen. And it is often this miscommunication of causes a lot of misunderstandings between, and upsetting themselves and others. I won't go too much into detail about this since it'd be off topic, but miscommunication is easy when someone is ranting on the internet, especially in places like All the Rage, hence we want to try our best to prevent this from happening.

I know the world is not a fairytale, we cannot also be happy - especially on the Internet, but I think it would be worth the try and make everyone as happy as possible, rather than leaving loopholes for people to be upset about?

Edit: And yeap - pretty much what Dynamics wrote.

Edit2: I gtg too - shush Lil and let us continue the debate tomorrow, shall we? Because I will be tempted to reply if you post now!!!

[Vasu]

Well, I don't find anything wrong with any of the rules in the forums. I've seen the number of chances you get before you get an infraction, and then you need to get 3 of them, and that's only going to get you a temp ban...
Great work mods, I hope these forums remain just as nice they were when I joined. Good luck.

[+Tequila+]

Theres many ways to look at this rule as long as a person has concrete evidence of what a person has done then it should be fine. If the person has screenies of the person in the act or just screenies of a chat long then everything he or she says is corroborated and leaves no room for speculation.

If the rule is set that when you wish to name a name just include evidence-screenies etc etc- in your thread then how does that open to the door to anything? I think that kind of evidence only stands to strengthen the post more

@Dynamics even though it maybe that most people are against this rule because of free speech its still worth a look simply because most people come to FF to get out from under the thumb of the CL's. Its not really a good thing to give them another rule that controls too much of what they say and do. It's a moderators job to end flames and arguments but not to control what the community members want to say. This is simply a matter of trust between the Mods and the Community. The Mods trust us to be mature in what we do and we trust them to not censor everything we do.

[Spirit]

... 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.

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.

I hate to single out one person's post, but you seem to either be confused or you have not received the whole story and I want to clarify for anyone else that might be confused.

I Asked her to change it. She was not Ordered to do anything. Also, She did not know I was in the process of editing her thread/screenshots to allow it the thread to stay open. I was actually uploading the images to my photobucket to edit. The current thread I was editing was still open. I checked back on the forum posts and saw where she was spamming threads. As her current thread was still open, there was no point in this. This is what resulted in her getting banned. Her repeated attempts to create new accounts and continued posting after her ban is what got it extended.

And while this situation led to the mods discussing possibly changing some of the rules, it does not mean that the actions taken against her were wrong or will be undone or that this rule will even be changed. We are getting feedback from the community to see what everyone thinks about the rule, because of several comments made in threads relating to this situation. Everyone needs to step back and reevaluate themselves once in a while and it is time for this forum to do the same. It is not the first time we have done this and will not be the last.

more directly related to the topic on hand:

Rules are made to protect.
Rules are not liked by all.
Rules can at any point be changed/modified as needed.
And sometimes it is not the rule that people have a problem with, it is the person handing out the rule.

Believe it or not, the mods on this forum discuss matters, we discuss rules before they are made, we discuss rules after they are made. We also have different opinions and we discuss those different views before making a decision.

Naming names for scammers is different. When someone has scammed, they are not going to came into a thread made about them and say, “wth, Booyah told me I could have his godly hammer, enhancement stones, and the 3 g’s.” Warning people about scammers is good and if you look at any thread created about a scammer/hacker, the threads have been left open and they have been left alone by the mods. AND the names have been left in there. So, using this as part of the argument is moot. We already allow that.

However, All The Rage was opened so that we would have a place to vent. Not rant about a certain individual and bad-mouth them, whether it is true or not. Sometimes it helps people to get rid of their anger by putting it down in words. All The Rage was created for This. That was why we made the rule, no naming names. Because you CAN go in there and say, “I am so sick of one person purposely failing KQs for their own pleasure.” And get your point across and release some of your anger. You do not have to name names. It is not a courtroom for people to present evidence and say well this is a fact and now this person should be found guilty, yada yada yada.

And just because someone has screenshots to back up their “accusations” does not make it a fact. We do not know all of the circumstances leading up to the “event” and the screenshots are more than likely taken by the person ranting; meaning they are one-sided. A good example of this was something that was recently discussed in this forum. A subject that was quickly squelched on the officials. The situation behind Falco’s banning. The other side had screenshots, that must make it a fact. Falco did not have screenshots; therefore his is a lie? No. The screenshots that were submitted were one-sided and did not show the whole subject. Yes, the things represented in those screenshots were facts, but they were not ALL the facts.

[O-mie]

She seemed to understand them just fine. She's saying that the 16 repeated threads would not have been made had this person not been trying to make their opinion stated, which happened to include the name of a person. So initially, the name rule is what caused them to do what they did, and recieve their ban, because they felt truly that they should be able to say what they wanted to say.

Also, how are screenshots not proof? =P You see a screenie of guy B saying "Hey u fking b!tch, ur in my spot, if u dont leave I'm going to get my guild to kill you" And follow up with his guild appearing and killing the person.

How is that not valid proof? Even if the complaining side did something like say....level near them, or even told them after to gtfo, or even before, it doesn't change the fact of what the person DID, and that person is more than able and welcome to take screens of the other person too, should they have done something bad as well.

That's why I think its important to have those screens if you're going to list a name. Its too easy for somebody to come along, write a paragraph about somebody and have everybody believe it, even if its not true, just because that person might be "popular". Screens show fact.

Rules are made to protect.
Rules are not liked by all.
Rules can at any point be changed/modified as needed.
And sometimes it is not the rule that people have a problem with, it is the person handing out the rule

While its pretty open to say you and I do not see eye to eye, I didn't say a word of this to approach you. Like everybody else who spoke up about this, I do not agree with this rule. It wouldn't have mattered if kt banned her, or fullback or rightclaw or yosei. I'd have still said what I said.

And I'd also have to say that what Angellic did, even though she had to sacrifice punishment for herself, well..it worked. =P People are going against this rule, for valid reasons. Some did not know about it before, others did not care before. But what she did was obviously her way of trying to change things, and even if this rule is not abolished, it still brought it to a lot of people's attention.

With the whole bossing around thing, I would have to say..yeah, some mods are getting quite bossy. I mean, ToS rules are one thing - don't insult people with intent on hurting them, (since I know my posts are usually picked apart and misread, but this I'm referring to people teasing each other as friends, but you can usually tell the difference pretty easy.) Don't degrade them, don't make racist or sexist remarks or attempt to defraud them, etc. But other fansites don't use this no-name rule, and they don't have problems with people abusing it.

Maybe you should trust your community a little more. >_> And with people who think "The mods should make the rules" sorry but...the mods are not the community. This whole thing screams fascism, to be honest, lmao. I hope I don't get the rod!

[Zwivix]

Just got one thing to say. Add Spoiler Tags. I asked for them a long time ago Righty thought it was a good idea, but nobody ever moved on it.
---
Edit: Just read Omies post and ive noticed something.Spirit takes things too personal sometimes even when their not about her. Just wanted to point that out, not to make anyone mad.

[Hessah]

She seemed to understand them just fine. She's saying that the 16 repeated threads would not have been made had this person not been trying to make their opinion stated, which happened to include the name of a person. So initially, the name rule is what caused them to do what they did, and recieve their ban, because they felt truly that they should be able to say what they wanted to say.

This is a public forum, a place for EVERYBODY, you can't just act the what you like just because "you truly felt its OK". Some gold spammer could come in here and spam the forum and "they truly felt its OK, because this is the only way they can put food on the table". Why do the REST of the forum think is not OK? Because it interrupts our forum experience. What do we do to deal with spammers? We have a rule that says "No spamming allowed." A rule is there for a reason, and if you can't follow a rule then actions are taken. If you're not happy with a rule, breaking MORE rule doesn't make your reason valid.

Also, how are screenshots not proof? =P You see a screenie of guy B saying "Hey u fking b!tch, ur in my spot, if u dont leave I'm going to get my guild to kill you" And follow up with his guild appearing and killing the person.

How is that not valid proof? Even if the complaining side did something like say....level near them, or even told them after to gtfo, or even before, it doesn't change the fact of what the person DID, and that person is more than able and welcome to take screens of the other person too, should they have done something bad as well.

That's why I think its important to have those screens if you're going to list a name. Its too easy for somebody to come along, write a paragraph about somebody and have everybody believe it, even if its not true, just because that person might be "popular". Screens show fact.

What DOES screenshot proof? It only provides a picture of someone saying/doing something at one point in time. (Sorry Falco I'll pull you out for a sec). Take Falco's incident. The other side had two screenshots and it got Falco banned. A poll here on FiestaFan with the rest of the story (no screenshots) shows that a lot of us thinks that he SHOULDN'T be banned. Screenshot doesn't mean anything, just because you have a screenshot doesn't mean you have the whole "truth", so I believe just because you have a screenshot, doesn't mean you can start naming people.

But other fansites don't use this no-name rule, and they don't have problems with people abusing it.

This fansite ONLY has this rule for All the Rage Section. It's not a rule across the board. Does the fansite you have in mind have a place for people to vent?!