Shoutbox Etiquette: Open Thread for Suggestions

[Raijin]

1. No personal attacks
2. No spamming (illegal websites like warez/illicit piracy torrents/etc)
3. No pornography of any kind (RL/Anime/etc)
4. No excessive bad language (This is where censorship replacement words plays it's roles)
5. No offensive material (sexist/racism/etc)

An additional rules for minors.

1. Prohibition of uploading photographs of themselves unless if a parent or a legal guardian consents to it.
2. In the S.B no submitting underage girls/boys photos (It's creepy)

The warning system:

1. First warning. A friendly reminder that you broke the rules and should be linked to the TOS – Terms of Service for educational reasons. (Disable their access to everywhere until they agree with the Terms of service)
2. Second warning. Ban for a week.
3. Third warning. Permanent ban.

The warnings that people receive should not be permanent. For each warnings can be expired in 6 months. So if you have 2 warnings and behave yourself for total of 12 months the warnings would be liquidated, and you would no longer have a “criminal” record on the site.

 

[Gunnbjorn]

1. No personal attacks

I agree with everything said, but there should be clarification for this one rule. I have witnessed some instances in the shoutbox where a person would share something about themselves or share something they like to do. Surprisingly, some people like to share some information that they don't to think is peculiar, and a lot of people will speak up and basically say, "Wow, that's actually a very wierd/creepy/wrong thing to be saying/doing/acting." With basically the entire SB disagreeing it, I've actually witnessed the person who shared said interest in the shoutbox turn himself into some sort of victim and immediately talk of how he is being attacked by everyone, when in reality everyone is trying to make the person understand that what he is saying that he's doing is abnormal and wrong.

I do like this rule, but if someone were to report a "personal attack" in the shoutbox, there should definitely be further investigation. There should most certainly be a requirement of a list of possible witnesses that may have seen this "personal attack" and back-up the possible victim by confirming that it was, in fact, a personal attack, or if it was an instance like the one I mentioned before. I'm not going to mention people or the example itself but I'm sure some of you know what I'm talking about.

I do think a member guilty of being involved in a "personal attack" should be punished, but I also think a person reporting a personal attack when it really wasn't a personal attack should be punished as well.

Just my thought.

 

[Rayven]

I do like this rule, but if someone were to report a "personal attack" in the shoutbox, there should definitely be further investigation. There should most certainly be a requirement of a list of possible witnesses that may have seen this "personal attack" and back-up the possible victim by confirming that it was, in fact, a personal attack, or if it was an instance like the one I mentioned before. I'm not going to mention people or the example itself but I'm sure some of you know what I'm talking about.

I don't need a laundry list of witnesses. I just need one person to send me a PM telling me something happened along with an approximate time. The shoutbox is logged. I have never, ever, ever taken someone's word on here when it comes to discipline matters. In fact, I rather prefer not getting a big philosophical litany from someone about the whys, wherefores and effects of a potential issue. I don't want that bias in my head when I look at the actual log.

 

[Rayven]

1. No personal attacks
2. No spamming (illegal websites like warez/illicit piracy torrents/etc)
3. No pornography of any kind (RL/Anime/etc)
4. No excessive bad language (This is where censorship replacement words plays it's roles)
5. No offensive material (sexist/racism/etc)

Spamming and illegal warez site posting are two different things. I agree that neither should be allowed. But spamming is visual "noise".
The offensive thing I don't necessarily like at all. My list of 'offensive' is probably very different than someone else's. When you try to make a blanket rule like that and people can take it subjectively rather than objectively, it makes for a dangerous and bad rule, I think.

An additional rules for minors.

1. Prohibition of uploading photographs of themselves unless if a parent or a legal guardian consents to it.
2. In the S.B no submitting underage girls/boys photos (It's creepy)

Again, this I find problematic. The age of majority varies country to country. And people don't necessarily put accurate dates of birth on their accounts. Unless someone states specifically what their age is, there's really no way to tell without very deep investigation how old they are. And I don't feel it's the business of this site to track down people and hound them for their personal details. I agree with the philosophy of protecting minors on the internet. My tactic thus far has been to encourage alteration of shoutbox culture in general and counseling younger members on internet safety.

The warning system:

1. First warning. A friendly reminder that you broke the rules and should be linked to the TOS – Terms of Service for educational reasons. (Disable their access to everywhere until they agree with the Terms of service)
2. Second warning. Ban for a week.
3. Third warning. Permanent ban.

The warnings that people receive should not be permanent. For each warnings can be expired in 6 months. So if you have 2 warnings and behave yourself for total of 12 months the warnings would be liquidated, and you would no longer have a “criminal” record on the site.

Warnings timeframes are already hard-coded. I also don't like to have lists of "infraction equals discipline" in general because it doesn't allow me the freedom to judge each case individually and give discipline (or not) based on my perception of the facts. I have found here that a conversation generally solves many misunderstandings and heals many wounds. I much prefer this system. I am not adverse to handing out discipline when warranted but, again, I don't need a list of "commandments" to do it.

 

[Gunnbjorn]

I do like this rule, but if someone were to report a "personal attack" in the shoutbox, there should definitely be further investigation. There should most certainly be a requirement of a list of possible witnesses that may have seen this "personal attack" and back-up the possible victim by confirming that it was, in fact, a personal attack, or if it was an instance like the one I mentioned before. I'm not going to mention people or the example itself but I'm sure some of you know what I'm talking about.

I don't need a laundry list of witnesses. I just need one person to send me a PM telling me something happened along with an approximate time. The shoutbox is logged. I have never, ever, ever taken someone's word on here when it comes to discipline matters. In fact, I rather prefer not getting a big philosophical litany from someone about the whys, wherefores and effects of a potential issue. I don't want that bias in my head when I look at the actual log.

When I said list I should of said 2 or 3 people instead. I also wasn't thinking, Mods would have access to shoutbox logs. Perhaps the reporter could provide a witness of their own and perhaps you could ask someone that also witnessed it (by looking at the shoutbox log) and getting their side as well. I'm sure the reporter would pick a witness that they know would back them up, if you were to pick another witness, you would more than likely find someone who doesn't have a side, and would say what they personally witnessed and what they thought. This can get technical, but for me personally, a "personal attack" would be considered serious in my book, but a "false report" is equally as serious to me. Which is why I'm putting so much emphasis on it.

 

[Rayven]

Well, what I'm looking for is this, really:

Hey, Rayven, there was some nastiness in the shoutbox yesterday involving <this person> and <this subject> around noon (please specify your timezone... I can convert!). Would you take a look at it? Thanks.

Witnesses are immaterial to a shoutbox infraction beyond actually seeing the content and being able to report it.

The shoutbox log is the only truly pertinent "witness". I think a problem here is that witness can mean two different things and I can't think of a good word to differentiate.

I -AM- interested in people who see something happen and report it (I'm driving down the road and I witnessed a car accident, so I call the emergency services).

I am -NOT- interested in people "testifying" to what they think they saw, how they feel and all of that, like a witness called in a trial.

 

[Gunnbjorn]

I am -NOT- interested in people "testifying" to what they think they saw, how they feel and all of that, like a witness called in a trial.

Then my suggestion is now void, for that was where I was going.

 

[Rayven]

Then my suggestion is now void, for that was where I was going.

Do you understand why I'm making this distinction, though? I'm not sure if I'm making my position on this clear.

 

[Crooksin]

Seems redundant to have "witnesses" and "testifying" on a Skyrim forum, lmao. On any forum really, this isn't Judge Judy (or Judge Rayven in this case, hehe)

 

[Gunnbjorn]

Then my suggestion is now void, for that was where I was going.

Do you understand why I'm making this distinction, though? I'm not sure if I'm making my position on this clear.

I think the method you as a moderator want to use in order to handle certain people not abiding by the newly revised shoutbox etiquette is the best and only way. This thread that was made for people to suggest rules and regulations for this new etiquette you want to construct, correct? People, including myself, are all going to post rules and methods they would use if they were you. My personal method is make everything like a court system, with evidence, witnesses, testimonies, and technicalities. You simply don't agree with that method, which is completely fine with me, do whatever you're comfortable with. You don't need to explain to me, I support everything you choose to do because you're ultimately doing this to make the site a better place, and I'm all for that. I'm sure you're reading everything and not thinking, "I'm going to take exactly what this person said and roll with it." But more-so taking the things people are saying that you disagree with, and using that to help yourself figure out what you want to do. I get it.... I think

 

[Start Dale]

Can we not just all be excellent to each other? Have we fallen so far from the teachings of Wyld Stallions??? Oh woe is us.

 

[Gunnbjorn]

Seems redundant to have "witnesses" and "testifying" on a Skyrim forum, lmao. On any forum really, this isn't Judge Judy (or Judge Rayven in this case, hehe)

Which is exactly why I'm not a Moderator on a Website. This is a suggestion thread, that's usually the method I use for problem solving between people. She disagrees with it, you disagree with it, I don't mind that either one of you disagree with it. Case closed (Oh, the hilarity).

 

[Rayven]

Seems redundant to have "witnesses" and "testifying" on a Skyrim forum, lmao. On any forum really, this isn't Judge Judy (or Judge Rayven in this case, hehe)

Which is exactly why I'm not a Moderator on a Website. This is a suggestion thread, that's usually the method I use for problem solving between people. She disagrees with it, you disagree with it, I don't mind that either one of you disagree with it. Case closed (Oh, the hilarity).

Solving problems "between" people is a totally different thing. If I am asked to moderate a disagreement between two people, then yes, I listen to all kinds of extra things.

However, when it comes to infractions, someone either posted something nasty or they didn't. They either attacked someone or they didn't. A simple parsing of the post or comments gives me all the evidence I need. I have had cases where someone reported being offended and after consulting the logs, while I can see what offended them, I don't agree it was a site infraction. These sorts of things are the ones I'm referring to here in this thread.

 

[Start Dale]

I had a thought about the shoutbox. It is absurdly multicultural, I mean once I was chatting to a fella from Iran, two Dutch folks and load of Americans. It was an awesome time. This happens regularly, I personally think that means the current system works... If incidents occur that suggest current system broke then we should talk change.

I have no suggestions sleep dep, killed the critical side of my mind.

 

[Gunnbjorn]

Seems redundant to have "witnesses" and "testifying" on a Skyrim forum, lmao. On any forum really, this isn't Judge Judy (or Judge Rayven in this case, hehe)

Which is exactly why I'm not a Moderator on a Website. This is a suggestion thread, that's usually the method I use for problem solving between people. She disagrees with it, you disagree with it, I don't mind that either one of you disagree with it. Case closed (Oh, the hilarity).

Solving problems "between" people is a totally different thing. If I am asked to moderate a disagreement between two people, then yes, I listen to all kinds of extra things.

However, when it comes to infractions, someone either posted something nasty or they didn't. They either attacked someone or they didn't. A simple parsing of the post or comments gives me all the evidence I need. I have had cases where someone reported being offended and after consulting the logs, while I can see what offended them, I don't agree it was a site infraction. These sorts of things are the ones I'm referring to here in this thread.

Wouldn't a personal attack be an example of a problem "between" people? It's a problem for the person being attacked because, well, he's been attacked, and obviously now has a problem with the person attacking him because he's reporting it. And the person who is doing the attacking obviously has a problem with the person he's attacking because he's attacking him in the first place.

 

[Rayven]

No, personal attacks are simply not allowed. I don't care what the problem is between people. You attack the point not the person. If you attack the person, it's a violation of the terms and not permitted.

 

[Start Dale]

No, personal attacks are simply not allowed. I don't care what the problem is between people. You attack the point not the person. If you attack the person, it's a violation of the terms and not permitted.

I approve this ruling. It is standard debating respect anyway. We don't have to agree to get on, if you can't get that maybe you don't have the ability to know others.

Oh no i'm getting sucked in...

 

[Gunnbjorn]

No, personal attacks are simply not allowed. I don't care what the problem is between people. You attack the point not the person. If you attack the person, it's a violation of the terms and not permitted.

Gah, I just messed myself up. I'm going to take a nap.

 

[Rayven]

Gah, I just messed myself up. I'm going to take a nap.

Rest well

Still, I think the difference here is a matter of distinction: mediation versus moderation (in the forum management sense).

I can and have performed mediation here. I do not consider mediation to be up for discussion because generally it involves private matters and no discipline. This kind of falls in the "out of the kindness of my heart" realm because, strictly speaking, mediation is not in my official job description. I do it because I do think it helps the forum. But I do it because I'm Rayven and because someone invited me to help, not because I am a moderator.

 

[Start Dale]

Gah, I just messed myself up. I'm going to take a nap.

Rest well

Still, I think the difference here is a matter of distinction: mediation versus moderation (in the forum management sense).

I can and have performed mediation here. I do not consider mediation to be up for discussion because generally it involves private matters and no discipline. This kind of falls in the "out of the kindness of my heart" realm because, strictly speaking, mediation is not in my official job description. I do it because I do think it helps the forum. But I do it because I'm Rayven and because someone invited me to help, not because I am a moderator.

Not enough positive ratings for this

We need more emoticon choices!