I want to join Something Awful now

Malkavian

I like how TV Tropes has to frame these things in such a retarded manner. We can't just talk about issues with the school system, no, THEY'RE PRISONS!

Christ fuck me...

Myrmidon

I still don't know why Soti Coto wasn't perma-banned.

ClockworkUniverse

^^^This is Chagen's second ban.

And yeah, the rules probably could use some reworking. A lot of them are a bit vague (I think we still don't know what "importing drama" really means.)

^Because we had just introduced the three-strike system and didn't want to deviate from it so soon.

MillerCross

It's just OTC, malk. You should get used to it.

@Shlapintogan: I've mentioned before that the 0 rule is just a redundant mission statement. Any other recommendations/comments?

^To me, importing drama is simply bringing a shitstorm/dramafest/bunch of insults/etc from another website here. We're allowed to comment on other websites, but we shouldn't be allowed to comment on the users there in a disrespectful, hateful manner. 

At least, that's how I think it should work.

Malkavian

It's the reason I stopped going to OTC. I was tired of hearing about muslim conspiracies and how Megaman and Metal Gear Solid are 'realistic'. The place gives me brain aneurysms.

TuefelHundenIV

Oh lord not the school systems are prisons shit again.

So shlapintogan.  Other then their obvious rules thread what would you recommend new joins do on SA?

All Nines

"this is, what, the third time you've banned Chagen?"

Second; if this were the third, that would be it. Although the first time, he committed a permaban-worthy offense . . . on another forum (and one that I still haven't forgiven him for, for the record).

"I think the moderation needs to quite a bit firmer, go over the rules and work them out so that you can get rid of the real problem posters without catching other people in the "well, if we ban this guy, we'll have to get all these others for the same rule" crossfire."

I feel like that's basically saying "ban the guy who started it". Not that I have a problem with that course of action.

"(you might believe that the "Don't be a jerk" rule speaks for itself, but people like pushing those boundaries as much as they can)"

For what it's worth, I don't like that being considered a "rule".

Shlapintogan

Let's go over the rest, then, shall we?

1a, 1b, and 1c are fine. You can keep those the way they are. 1c could use a little more enforcing (not bans or probations or anything, but mod intervention could help a lot).

Rule 2 could always use more enforcement, but an elaboration/concrete definition of what "needlessly rude or inflammatory" entails. Mainly, give it some extra wording so you can give people a straight definition of what is going to far, do NOT leave it up to their discretion.

Ah, Rule 3, "Do not import or export wars from/to other websites. Users who do so will be warned if not banned instantly." It seemed to me yesterday night that this is the rule Chagen broke. Has serious definition issues, consider a total revision and elaboration.

4a, 4b, and 4c are fine for the most part, but could use some serious enforcement. From what I've seen (and this may just be my perception), these usually illicit a warning instead of a ban. If I were you, I'd be all over giving out at least tempbans for being a drama-starting dickbag.

5, 6, 7a, and 7b are fine as is, 8a and 8b could use some revision to reflect the new liveblogging category.

Violating rule 9  should carry a pre-defined punishment. I haven't really seen problems with spamming, so I'm not sure if you've had problems with that in the past, but having it carry a punishment would help to deter it in the future. Same thing with rule 10 and rule 11.

Handling NSFW content could use some refining. You could probably role 12a, 12b, and 12c into one rule, slap a definable penalty onto it, and have it work just fine.

We'll skip the 14s, because those are really more along the lines of "Here are the mods, contact them if you have an issue." 15 is a guideline of where you shouldn't use the site and what the site is for, and 16 isn't really a rule, so, despite the MST3K joke, you should probably just cut it.

Tuefel, I'd recommend simply being as calm and collected as possible. Make sure you spellcheck and grammar check your posts and definitely lurk before posting. No one's going to demand you have a certain number of posts by a certain time, so don't rush to post in every thread you find and make sure you have content. Posting shit like "I'm new here, where should I go?" and single emoticon posts WILL get you banned, so you should take the time to read the threads you post in once or twice. 

vacasama

^To me, importing drama is simply bringing a shitstorm/dramafest/bunch
of insults/etc from another website here. We're allowed to comment on
other websites, but we shouldn't be allowed to comment on the users
there in a disrespectful, hateful manner.

I suppose the board could also be a little more picky about which banned tropers get invited here.  I just saying.

MillerCross

Rule 2 could always use more enforcement, but an elaboration/concrete definition of what "needlessly rude or inflammatory" entails. Mainly, give it some extra wording so you can give people a straight definition of what is going to far, do NOT leave it up to their discretion.

Thing is, this is the rule that I think the board has more trouble with. Especially as defining such a concept ignores the fact that such comments are sometimes can be made in a fascetious/joking fashion.

Shlapintogan

That would be a good idea, vacasama.

Basically what I'm getting at is you guys have to be harder on rulebreakers. I'm seeing a lot of warnings and the occasional ban, but permabans are few and far between. I can understand not wanting to get rid of users, but you need to set a clear example of what is and is not allowed. Part of what made me join up with you guys after leaving TvTropes is that you guys are open to criticism, so what I'm telling you is get mad, stand up and say "This shit is not welcome here, and if you intend on doing it, then you are not welcome here."

Don't let the number of users mitigate the decision to ban a problem poster for good, and really I'm not too keen on the three strike system. Rules are rules, and each rule should carry a specific weight that can be enforced right away. Make it so people DON'T make mistakes, because doing so would carry a ban.

All Nines

Have you seen the new map in the Rules thread yet? I think that works better than the "week ban --> month ban --> permaban". Or do you think that's still too lenient?

Shlapintogan

I'm of the opinion that it depends entirely on the rule being broken. Certain rules could stick with the map, yeah, but other ones should definitely carry an "if you break this rule, you are banned, END OF STORY" sort of deal.

All Nines

I probably should have clarified that the process may be adjusted case-by-case (we have permabanned a few people; namely, notwithstanding got banned because she kept sniping at Chagen and then made it clear that she held the site's rules in contempt).

MillerCross

But it took quite a while for it to happen. 

Way I see it, importing drama should be an instant ban. Impersonating users deliberatly too. 

Shlapintogan

I still think it would be a good idea to place a definable weight on each rule. People are less likely to gamble with the rules if they know exactly what's going to happen to them if the break them.

All Nines

I'll run it by GMH whenever he's on; his rule post isn't perfect, and I agree that we should give each offense measurable weight; I just didn't have it in mind to mess with the rules that much because they were there before I even came to IJBM II, let alone when I became a mod.

Vorpy

POMF stems from particular page in The Light of Tsukimi Manor 2 (月見草のあかり) by Inuboshi (犬星), first published in the September 2010 volume of COMIC MEGAMILK (コミックメガミルク). The pornographic lolicon manga depicts a girl, Akari, being tricked into having sex with her older brothers.

Wait that derail is over.

could always use more enforcement, but an elaboration/concrete definition of what "needlessly rude or inflammatory" entails

* Using generalizations to intentionally but discreetly attack another user with knowledge that the generalization applies to them. "Well I dislike the local brit, so if I say "all brits are morons", I won't get in trouble for a direct personal attack.
* Lashing out at annoying users rather than staying on topic, or participating in a dogpile or flamewar at said person. "Hey look Clearayn posted something stupid again. Never change, Clearayn."
* Blatant personal attacks. "Go fuck yourself Wolvmeister."


Things like that. A lot of this is subjective though, because I don't know everything about everybody so it would be impossible to know that saying "welfair dependees are ruining the country" would offend a welfair dependee I know on here. In general I guess using a generalization anyway is bound to hit too many un-needed targets and get a bad taste anyway.

And I think people who join here specifically to start shit and attack people (like Kashchei, and GB to a lesser extent) should be banned outright since then allowing them to dip on the people they hate for too long becomes a problem. Even if we know them on TVT or #yackfest or any other site, if they are here solely to start shit they should be banned.

And:

, so don't rush to post in every thread you find and make sure you have content.

What is the minimum requirement for content? I have seen a lot of the bans in the banlist part of the SA that have very cryptic and dubious reasonings for bans, and not sure what consitutes as a contentless post. It's contentless if: You already said something that was explained in better context; is similar to a "me too" post, something that contradicts the point being made but doesn't explain why, parroting memes, sayings or quotes, saying something that doesn't further another point being made in the thread, and something that is not entertaining, correct?

I suppose the board could also be a little more picky about which banned tropers get invited here.  I just saying.

If they get banned from elsewhere and have attitudes similar to GuyInWhite, don't let them on here.

Shlapintogan

You can comment on something that has been posted in the thread, or you can provide new content related to it (like in the general feel-good thread, you can either get to d'awwing at the pictures of cute animals or post your own uplifting stuff). Lurk around, see what is okay and what isn't, and follow the rules and you'll be okay.

Myrmidon

"If you allow bigots and paedophiles a voice, people are going to assume they represent the site's opinions in some way. Not coming down against that sort of behavior looks like condoning it."

I can see your point.

Mind you, I don't see many outright pedophiles and racists on the forums, but that might be because I avoid OTC like the plague.

I do remember this one guy getting banned a little while ago for defending pedophilia, though.

MillerCross

Yeah, there was this guy who kept condoning pedophillia everywhere they went. Jauce, I think? 

Wicked223

Warsie, actually.

Myrmidon

I thought Warsie was the race war guy.

Katrika

I'm slowly reading through the SA thread on TVT and they've got a lot of good points, although I still do like TVT.

Well, the entire thread isn't perfect, and there were some things in there that offended me (like the one person who said the answer to 'why is incest bad?' is that it produces aspies), but TVT Forums are faaaaaaaar from perfect either. Overall, it's an interesting read, so yay!

Also, I think one of the WORST things about OTC is how circular the discussions are. To take 'Why Is Incest Bad?', most people, yes, find incest bad. But no matter how many times people kept trying to bring up things like the power imbalance in parental incest, other people kept trotting out the 'well what if they're siblings and consenting adults and not going to have children, huh?' People weren't getting allowed to make good points, because once they did someone would just jerk to conversation over to another focus.

Crimson

Then there's arguments like "people who are against incest are just as bad as people who are against homosexuality!"

I want to say who wrote that. But I won't because I'm pretty sure that's against the rules.

Katrika

Ugh....it's completely different.

I, personally, oppose incest because I think that familiar love and romantic love shouldn't be mixed, because the result of that mixture would be a really twisted emotion, even if you're both consenting adults.

Wicked223

One of the posters in there said something about a father-daughter relationship where that didn't happen, didn't they?

Katrika

Parent-child relationships are also inherently wrong because there's always some level of dubious consent due to the power imbalance. Even if the child came onto the parent.

vandro

Not to be...a bother but...Shouldn't we move the incest talk to another topic?

MillerCross

Thread has been made