| As I've said before, the Internet lacks physical contact and real life information about you, because of that, insults are blind, anonymity makes people act differently than they usually do, and because of that anonymity, any type of subject can be spoken of without actual societal consequences. Because everything on the Internet has less impact on the individual because of certain barriers, the rules can't be similar to reality, and the bar should be raised on what truly is harmful to the individual. Mod Edit: Removed replies to deleted post(s). |
KinetaNov 8, 2013 10:27 AM
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Battlechili1 said: Earlier I said I'd get back to some arguments but I don't really feel like it nor do I have the time to. So I'll say this as my suggestion. When one person insults another, that person should get a warning. If the user continues to insult others, after about 2 warnings they should get a ban. When the user returns, if they continue to do so soon after the unban they should get banned again. If a long time has passed since the last ban, they should simply get a warning. If a long time passes after that warning, another warning is in order. But if its a short time since the last problem, the person should be banned again. This is to be repeated until 3 bans have occurred, at which point the 4th would be a perma ban. After that, the only way the user can get back on MAL (because I believe they should be allowed to do this) would be to discuss it with moderators, perhaps via IRC for a while showing that they've repented. Afterwords, moderators can determine whether or not to allow the person to return, and if they do, they are not allowed in the forums for a period of time. After that time is up, they are allowed on the forums, but their post count per day is restricted until enough time has passed without any problems to show that the person has learned their lesson. Requoted as reminder as a suggestion for how moderation should work in the case of insults. As to what an insult is: Any term used in a derogatory manner towards another user. If it has the intent to offend, it is a problem. If it offends the other user and the user says so and the insulter doesn't stop, it is a problem. If an insult is done in a more vague way, such as what can be seen from Adram's post, I feel like a warning is in order, but not a ban, unless it is done multiple times. Basically I want zero tolerance for insults unless they aren't offending the user the insults are aimed at and unless the user using them has the intent of offending. |
TrishaCatOct 31, 2013 1:52 PM
| If you can't take criticism, you shouldn't even be on the internet in the first place. |
| my avatar is the bus driver from Rosario + Vampire |
| A difference of opinion is not an insult, it's as simple as attacking the post not the poster, really 14+ pages of posts for this? |
| Everybody has their own way of looking at this problem, but at the end of the day every proposition is worthless if the ones running the place don't approve of it. That's why we need to know their stand on this so we have a starting point, so we know what has a chance of being considered in the first place. The purpose of the policy (all of them actually) is to try and control people's behaviour, by encouraging or punishing certain actions, the mods can try to make MAL into what they want it to be. It's not worth calling it brainwashing or training, nor is it as succesfull, but I that's a way of seeing it. That's why we need word from them, so we can know: what do they want the MAL community to be? Regardless of how impossible it may be, or how absurd it can appear to us, we need to know precisely what do the mods expect from us in terms of behaviour, even if they themselves know we wouldn't accept it. Or else arguments like Adram's and Immahnoob's will continue. Mod Edit: Removed quoted of deleted post and one-line reply. |
KinetaNov 8, 2013 10:25 AM
"Rejoice! We are humans— we are the most talented people! Precisely because we were born without any ability— we can achieve anything— this is the will of the weakest race!" – Sora, ‘No game No life Vol.01’ |
| You should NOT be banned for insulting. Actually, you should. But not for 1 month. Mod Edit: Removed moderator specific discussion. Mod Edit 2: Removed edited-in note about "mod censorship". Please read the OP. |
KinetaNov 8, 2013 10:24 AM
 |
| This post will explain how insults are currently handled by the moderating team and will not include my own opinion on the thread (which I hope to post later). I apologise that it took a number of days for this post. General Rule Violation Policy Full-text tl;dr How does MAL define insults? An insult is a derogatory remark that labels an individual or group of users. When used in a debate, an insult dismisses the arguments of the target user(s) and discourages them from participating further. Name-calling is not productive and typically derails the topic by turning the discussion to the credibility of the user(s). It never convinces the other party and often provokes a similar reaction from other posters. The resulting commotion is ineffective for the offender, offensive for the target, distracting for spectators, and tiring for moderators. When not used in a debate (e.g. "what an idiotic thread, OP"), then its purpose is one or more of: baiting, flaming, harassment, trolling - all of which are rule violations in their own right. Full text tl;dr Moderation of insults I think this effectively covers the mod portion of my post in this thread. I would like to reply to various posts in this thread as well, but I will do this more in my own capacity than as an official post. Please remember: Kineta said: The purpose here is not to resolve an event of the past that only you and your warning/banning moderator are aware of; these discussions should always be taken to private messages. Instead, the purpose is to discuss how insults are currently moderated and how this might be changed in the future. @elite-sama: |
| Okay, first of all, I'm going to suggest a rule of 3's on warnings. 3 warnings before your first ban. Subsequent bans can be trimmed back to 1, if you guys can keep track of that. Repeat offenders are gonna be repeat offenders, but first timers deserve slack. And, a shorter expiration of warnings (or just make warning expiration exist). Using my case here, I apparently got a ban from "the Friday thing" because I had a warning sitting on me one month prior, which I'd already forgotten by that point (hence why I had to have it pointed out). My fault or not for remembering, but that's just... weird. In a good example of this: A user gets warned, cleans up their posting habits (avoiding insulting for a month), and then insults someone again a month later. That's 2 separate cases, not a "streak of aggressive posting". Clean posting for a month (or however long you set expiration times) is good enough I'd say. Or maybe I'm just supporting myself. "Indirect insults are taken in context; e.g. "anyone who thinks that is a dumbass"." Take this off as counting as an insult. That's just rife with possibility for anyone to say, and then get warned/banned. I mean, you could basically take a look at the gun threads, and you'll see that everywhere. Have fun cleaning up an entire thread's worth of users.. "Non-obviously derogatory statements are not insults as long as they don't become obviously offensive." >Everyone here is a giant cream cheese cake because they're just oh-so tangy and moist~ So in effect, we just gotta be subtle about it, following the "sarcasm" philosophy explained earlier. Well, I think that's all I got for suggestions. Someone else can go reformulate their entire system, I'm down for just those changes. |
MellowJelloNov 4, 2013 10:19 PM
| I think to a certain extent it should be allowed. When I insult people I hardly ever mean it. It's all in good fun, but I guess it's hard to tell over the interweb. Frankly, I didn't even know it wasn't allowed until I called some nice fellow an asshole and I got a warning. |
MellowJello said: I had a warning sitting on me one month prior, which I'd already forgotten by that point Wait so you think because you FORGOT about your warning - which was given to you so you WOULD REFRAIN FROM BREAKING RULES IN THE FUTURE - you should be given a free pass? The entire point of a warning is to say "never in the future again do bad things, you've been warned". If you "forgot" that's because you don't care enough about the rules or keeping to them to even remember you were told to stop fucking ignoring them prior. Warnings stay on record because then they can track the fact that YOU WERE ALREADY TOLD TO STOP and chose to continue. Thus a harsher punishment is needed - one you WON'T forget in a month. "No, officer! It's okay that I'm felony speeding again - I FORGOT I got caught doing it before, doesn't that mean I get to do it again with a free pass?". What you do stays on the record because you've done it. If you're warned about it, it stays on the record to show the staff you KNOW BETTER and have NO EXCUSE for doing it again aside blatantly and purposefully breaking the rules. At this point you should be banned. It could be a year old warning - but it's still something you were told and were expected to fix about how you use the site permanently. This is going back to hidden now that you're just posting in hopes to keep rubbing yourself off. |
TallonKarrde23Nov 4, 2013 10:40 PM
 |
TallonKarrde23 said: Okay, well I'm willing to drop that suggestion. The others, not so much, unless you can explain those away as well.MellowJello said: Wait so you think because you FORGOT about your warning - which was given to you so you WOULD REFRAIN FROM BREAKING RULES IN THE FUTURE - you should be given a free pass?I had a warning sitting on me one month prior, which I'd already forgotten by that point The entire point of a warning is to say "never in the future again do bad things, you've been warned". If you "forgot" that's because you don't care enough about the rules or keeping to them to even remember you were told to stop fucking ignoring them prior. Warnings stay on record because then they can track the fact that YOU WERE ALREADY TOLD TO STOP and chose to continue. Thus a harsher punishment is needed - one you WON'T forget in a month. "No, officer! It's okay that I'm felony speeding again - I FORGOT I got caught doing it before, doesn't that mean I get to do it again with a free pass?". What you do stays on the record because you've done it. If you're warned about it, it stays on the record to show the staff you KNOW BETTER and have NO EXCUSE for doing it again aside blatantly and purposefully breaking the rules. At this point you should be banned. It could be a year old warning - but it's still something you were told and were expected to fix about how you use the site permanently. You seem to keep thinking I'm doing this all for my own benefit. Please understand that's not why I'm doing this. |
MellowJello said: No. There are two things you can do to insult a user and still be within the guidelines, as I can see. No sarcasm required.So in effect, we just gotta be subtle about it, following the "sarcasm" philosophy explained earlier. 1) You should reverse the subject and the object: Instead of saying, for example, "Anyone who thinks x is a dumbass", you say "x is a dumbass idea that some people think". 2) You should attach the insult to a homunculus: Instead of saying "Anyone who thinks x is a dumbass", just say "y is dumb", where y is some idea which can be contextually conceived to relate to the person in question. To make it clear, if someone says, "Affirmative action is a, b, c....", you can reply, "Misandry is a dumb idea." It's an attack on an idea and a total non-sequitur, but everyone will understand the subtext of it. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
elite-sama said: Well then that's a simpler loophole to (hopefully not) abuse.By the way katsu, now that kineta's posted the policy, what part of it do you think needs changing? |
MellowJello said: I think we should have a huge publicly visible number hanging over our avatars like the Sword of Damocles. And when it reaches "4", it deletes your avatar and replaces it with the text, "YOU'RE BANNED FUCKER. ENJOY!"elite-sama said: Well then that's a simpler loophole to (hopefully not) abuse.By the way katsu, now that kineta's posted the policy, what part of it do you think needs changing? But since Kineta explained her definition of "insults", and as long as we both agree (do we?) that if I say "I don't like orangeness, and I think orange is a dumbass color", it should not be taken to mean "I don't like [a person], and I think [a person] is a dumbass", then I have no suggestions. The important thing for me is that everyone understands the definition. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| @Tallon And again using reality as an example on the Internet. The idea of expiring warnings is used by other sites like YouTube. Mellow's example is a good one, with the current warning system it's like we're treating users like criminals, he had the habit of insulting because of several reasons, he got warned, he changed that habit because it was not part of his posting style, a month later he got extremely mad at an user and he insulted him, fuck, he's banned because he got warned 1 month ago. This is the Internet, we're socializing here, speeding isn't a good comparison especially that you're actually comparing a life threatening action with something that barely has effect and are on different systems. @Katsucats, everyone understands the definition and we can indirectly insult people as much as we want. Hue. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| I think I've learned to not use personal examples to defend my argument, ha. Well, noob's explanation of it made me switch back to my original stance. Back and forth time for sure. elite-sama said: You know, all of that suggests that mods should implement a rule to counteract that very thing you described, which I'm not sure is what you want or not. And yeah, I'm not sure Kineta will agree with you on that. |
MellowJello said: What was the very thing I described?I think I've learned to not use personal examples to defend my argument, ha. Well, noob's explanation of it made me switch back to my original stance. Back and forth time for sure. elite-sama said: You know, all of that suggests that mods should implement a rule to counteract that very thing you described, which I'm not sure is what you want or not. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
elite-sama said: That it's perfectly acceptable to attack an idea, as long as there's no attachment to the user posting that idea.MellowJello said: What was the very thing I described?I think I've learned to not use personal examples to defend my argument, ha. Well, noob's explanation of it made me switch back to my original stance. Back and forth time for sure. elite-sama said: You know, all of that suggests that mods should implement a rule to counteract that very thing you described, which I'm not sure is what you want or not.I have no opinion of that, but it definitely sounds like loophole abuse (if users decide to pursue insulting that way). |
| Well, from context you can understand that we're not insulting the idea anymore but the user himself. If you're going to exaggerate the so-called "loophole" is going to become a knot, where you'll be stopped from moving on for a month or so. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: Well, feel free to offer up some suggestions on what needs to be changed with the current policy.Well, from context you can understand that we're not insulting the idea anymore but the user himself. If you're going to exaggerate the so-called "loophole" is going to become a knot, where you'll be stopped from moving on for a month or so. |
MellowJello said: I bought, for $100, a nifty little software called AnyDVD HD. What it does is allow me to burn and rip blu-rays, or watch it without content protection on my PC. It's the best $100 I ever spent. Customer service is top-notch, and updates are granted as soon as any new protection scheme is spotted. In fact, I'd say they're more diligent than any "legal" software I've ever came across. So what's my point?elite-sama said: That it's perfectly acceptable to attack an idea, as long as there's no attachment to the user posting that idea.MellowJello said: What was the very thing I described?I think I've learned to not use personal examples to defend my argument, ha. Well, noob's explanation of it made me switch back to my original stance. Back and forth time for sure. elite-sama said: You know, all of that suggests that mods should implement a rule to counteract that very thing you described, which I'm not sure is what you want or not.I have no opinion of that, but it definitely sounds like loophole abuse (if users decide to pursue insulting that way). I don't actually advise the course of action to go chasing down loopholes. It won't work. I also don't advise leaving definitions loosely defined and up to interpretation -- imagine if the US law was like that because the government was afraid of "loopholes". What makes the most sense to me is that the mods determine a reasonable position and stick with it despite loopholes. That is their decision to make, and I don't think I should concern myself with it unnecessarily. But if they do implement new rules, I hope they explain and define the terms of those rules like they have done here, and maintain it in an accessible place. Kineta's post here should have been (if it isn't) stickied on the top of every forum. Immahnoob said: Can it? So who interprets this context? The mods of course, but it's clear then that this interpretation is not a statement of rule, it is then arbitrary, and that's exactly the kind of thing that should be minimized.Well, from context you can understand that we're not insulting the idea anymore but the user himself. If you say "Affirmative action is a, b, c..." And I say "Affirmative action is a dumbass idea because a, b, c are dumbass reasons", is that an attack on the user? |
katsucatsNov 5, 2013 1:22 AM
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Yeah, basically, leave the loopholes alone. If they're really harmful they'll do something about it, I have no suggestion, I usually do insult the "idea" of users, actually, I always do that, I never got a warning for it, and they never changed anything in the rules until now so they can be able to warn people that do what I do. So why change it? |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
j0x said: Tyrel said: Also, how about banning people from posting to the forums instead of IP banning them from the site. you edited your post lol and yes this is my very suggestion too I support this as well, although I doubt they'll make it this way. They'll just say that it reinforces the fact that you're being punished which will make you more docile in the future. If people weren't IP banned I think there wouldn't be much fear for getting banned. It's easily circumvented anyway by using TOR and importing your main accounts list to your alt and vice versa when you're unbanned. It's what I did when I was banned for a month. You just have to make sure you're exporting your list on a regular basis, or after you make a remark/post that's likely to get you banned. |
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه. mattbenz99 said: Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing |
| If you FEEL like you're going to get banned, you export it. I assure you, that FEELING is almost always right if you have at least a few weeks on MAL. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Goryo said: j0x said: Tyrel said: Also, how about banning people from posting to the forums instead of IP banning them from the site. you edited your post lol and yes this is my very suggestion too I support this as well, although I doubt they'll make it this way. They'll just say that it reinforces the fact that you're being punished which will make you more docile in the future. If people weren't IP banned I think there wouldn't be much fear for getting banned. I said this in this thread or a separate one: I talked to them about this before, and they simply cannot do that with how the site is set up currently - and nobody can change that aspect aside Xinil (who doesn't care and wont). They aren't against it, it's just out of their hands - as nobody can change those aspects of the site but the person least interested. I don't know why this thread keeps unhiding itself. Trying again. |
|
| I find it funny how everyone is ignoring the fact I was censored by a certain moderator. This is a pretty serious issue in my opinion. |
|
lupadim said: I find it funny how everyone is ignoring the fact I was censored by a certain moderator. This is a pretty serious issue in my opinion. No, it's not really an issue, it's one of their rules and you have to follow it. Saying "X mod banned me for no reason" is the same like saying "A mod banned me for no reason", the idea that you got banned for no reason is the problem if true, they already know who banned you, so why would it change anything? |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Kineta said: Now that I've been able to see what the actual policy is, I'm gonna go ahead and say that, in my opinion, this sounds fairly reasonable and I almost entirely agree with it except for the following: If you're gonna take indirect insults in context, you might as well take the "You're dumb" cases as wel or not even count them. Especially when most users, now that they know this, will probably take the indirect insult route. Also, it is said that posts end up on flame wars due to simple "You're an idiot" but doesn't that have a fairly greater chance of occurring with an indirect insult using "Anyone who thinks this..." formula? The former may address one user as dumb, and consequently elicit an aggressive response from the insulted user and his friends and what not; but an "anyone" case might get a horde, especially if it is used on a sensitive topic. I'll use the famous rape thread as an example. "Anyone who believes clothing does/doesn't play a role is retarded" (Bam, everyone who supported the idea will now be on top of me) "[To User A] You are dumb" I'll most likely have User A and a few friends insulting me back, but they will probably be a smaller number than above. (Unless, it is Mellow lol. In that case, I'll have MAL, fucking HB and what not) Other than that, not much else to say. It pretty much looks like "If you want to insult, don't be so fucking obvious as to violate this". Fair Enough That wasn't a dig at anyone, just a little bit of non-"admin voice" me coming out +1 for the non admin voice. Really, it's somewhat comfortable to see that there is a person at the other side of the screen and not a robot like most of the times a mod intervenes in the forums. |
MuuseNov 5, 2013 12:29 PM
 |
| "Anyone who takes believes clothing does/doesn't play a role is retarded" She just said that this is against the rules. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: "Anyone who takes believes clothing does/doesn't play a role is retarded" She just said that this is against the rules. I'm still in the process of editing this post. My bad. Anyhow, unless I read it wrong, it says that indirect insults are taken in context, which is what I'm addressing with that. Indirect insults are taken in context; e.g. "anyone who thinks that is a dumbass". Makes it seem like you can get away with it to me. |
MuuseNov 5, 2013 12:02 PM
|
| You really can't, no. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: You really can't, no. I guess that's where the part that context consideration depends from mod to mod comes in. Mod Edit: Removed off-topic discussion. |
KinetaNov 8, 2013 10:21 AM
|
-Muuse- said: Immahnoob said: You really can't, no. I guess that's where the part that context consideration depends from mod to mod comes in. So basically you're saying that it's left to their discretion. That's how it's always been anyway. Just hope that they don't see you doing anything while they're in a capricious mindset. |
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه. mattbenz99 said: Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing |
Goryo said: -Muuse- said: Immahnoob said: You really can't, no. I guess that's where the part that context consideration depends from mod to mod comes in. So basically you're saying that it's left to their discretion. That's how it's always been anyway. Just hope that they don't see you doing anything while they're in a capricious mindset. That's what Kineta said in her post in that matter. What I'm saying is that if you're gonna leave indirect insults to their discretion, you might as well do that with the "You're dumb/stupid" cases. |
|
| Not all can understand indirect insults. Not all get offended by them either, people usually dislike insults if they're directed towards them, knowing they are idiots but their neighbor is also an idiot may not be as bad. There's nothing to add, it's just that we're in the dark sometimes and it looks like they're not actually following the rules consistently and sometimes it looks like they're banning for no reason, without warning, etc. Mod Edit: Merged posts. |
KinetaNov 8, 2013 10:20 AM
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: Well, you could discuss whether my suggestions on what to change are acceptable or not.There's nothing to add, it's just that we're in the dark sometimes and it looks like they're not actually following the rules consistently and sometimes it looks like they're banning for no reason, without warning, etc. Or this: Kineta said: 1. After what time length of good behaviour should the warning/bans for a specific rule violation expire, if at all? 2. When should a user be warned in between bans, if ever? |
mbac said: Just going to say that an "ad hominem" attack is one that dismisses someone's arguments based on facts about the person, so "ur dum" would not be ad hominem since it doesn't dismiss anything.on the other hand, we can look at the overall topic and compare with the post; does "ur dum" add anything? generally, no, as it is an ad hominem attack that makes no mention of the subject at hand In terms of site "reputation", I'm not sure that I could accept that angle considering Crave's practical abandonment of its own property, and the lack of a cohesive community direction. For instance, no one has ever said, "On MAL, we strive to do x." Is this merely a place where people could throw anime-related thoughts at each other without a chance for debate, and in turn, offense? If so, then it should be stated as such, since only with the risk of isolating people who don't fall into a particular niche can you nurture the site towards that niche. In order to invoke site reputation, it must first be made known what kind of site MAL aims to be. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Kineta said: This post will explain how insults are currently handled by the moderating team and will not include my own opinion on the thread (which I hope to post later). I apologise that it took a number of days for this post. Thank you. Kineta said: General Rule Violation Policy Full-text tl;dr I would have to agree with some guy's idea of having three warnings before a ban, and they should expire, but the rate at which they expire should vary. I'm not sure if warnings are something that can be taken care of by MAL itself instead of the mods (how many programmers does MAL have?) but here's how it could go:
|
AloxamaxNov 6, 2013 1:31 PM
"Rejoice! We are humans— we are the most talented people! Precisely because we were born without any ability— we can achieve anything— this is the will of the weakest race!" – Sora, ‘No game No life Vol.01’ |
| Thanks Aloxamax, I didn't have to think things out myself. I wanted to write something similar, but I wanted the timers for the first warning to be at 2 weeks - 1 month or 1 month - 2 months depending on what rule you didn't follow. Also, I would have wanted second warnings to disappear too. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: Thanks Aloxamax, I didn't have to think things out myself. I wanted to write something similar, but I wanted the timers for the first warning to be at 2 weeks - 1 month or 1 month - 2 months depending on what rule you didn't follow. Also, I would have wanted second warnings to disappear too. Well, I made the second and third warnings remain to further annoy those that would deliberately try to break the rules. It likely to be even more annoying for those who get warnings 'without reason'. |
"Rejoice! We are humans— we are the most talented people! Precisely because we were born without any ability— we can achieve anything— this is the will of the weakest race!" – Sora, ‘No game No life Vol.01’ |
| Just a quick note (before this gains any momentum), to say: Aloxamax said: Sorry, we've only got one. Warnings are basically tracked in notepad (i.e. text only). Please try to keep this in mind during your suggestions...I know that this is something Mods couldn't possibly keep up with on their own (or atleast I doubt it), but MAL has to have other capable programmers other than Xinil right? ...right? P.S. Np. |
| Then when you warn somebody you write down the date and then think of how much you want to let the warning go on. That way you can remember. And Kineta, if we get you another one will that change anything? |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Kineta said: Just a quick note (before this gains any momentum), to say: Aloxamax said: Sorry, we've only got one. Warnings are basically tracked in notepad (i.e. text only). Please try to keep this in mind during your suggestions...I know that this is something Mods couldn't possibly keep up with on their own (or atleast I doubt it), but MAL has to have other capable programmers other than Xinil right? ...right? I already saw this coming, so I got something simple that shouldn't be too hard to use. This is an example of how warnings and their expiration date can be tracked in text:
|
AloxamaxNov 6, 2013 2:32 PM
"Rejoice! We are humans— we are the most talented people! Precisely because we were born without any ability— we can achieve anything— this is the will of the weakest race!" – Sora, ‘No game No life Vol.01’ |
Aloxamax said: I like this system. A little bit iffy on the length of warnings till they expire, but everything seems good.Aloxamax said: Why, thank you!I would have to agree with some guy's idea On another note, I still feel like their definition of an "insult" is a bit off, but it seems like discussion on changing their definition is losing momentum. Need I remind everyone that we spent 13 pages of discussion on that? To maybe change their policy on that? Well, if that point gets ignored, I guess "knowledgeable" users will just resort to "clever" insults ala moist cucumbers and prickly pears. |
| I don't think warnings should expire for at least a few months. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Mahou_Kony said: Care to explain your reasoning as to why?I don't think warnings should expire for at least a few months. |
MellowJello said: On another note, I still feel like their definition of an "insult" is a bit off, but it seems like discussion on changing their definition is losing momentum. Need I remind everyone that we spent 13 pages of discussion on that? To maybe change their policy on that? Well, if that point gets ignored, I guess "knowledgeable" users will just resort to "clever" insults ala moist cucumbers and prickly pears. Well, the main problem with their definition of 'insult' seems to be that it can get 'innocent' people banned. Like I said in my previous post, it would be ideal for users to receive a message every time they get a warning that indicates which rule they broke and the amount of warnings they currently have. In case of false-alarm, the user should have plenty of time to talk to the mods about it as long as they don't get all three warnings/banned simultaneously. |
"Rejoice! We are humans— we are the most talented people! Precisely because we were born without any ability— we can achieve anything— this is the will of the weakest race!" – Sora, ‘No game No life Vol.01’ |
More topics from this board
» I can't use forums using Windows High Contrast anymorevasipi4946 - 6 hours ago |
1 |
by vasipi4946
»»
1 hour ago |
|
Sticky: » Inactive Username Request Thread ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Kineta - Sep 21, 2015 |
3372 |
by GARFIELDD666
»»
4 hours ago |
|
» [Reported] Username being auto-pasted into search barDariTheWeeb - Feb 19 |
49 |
by DeadPiles
»»
8 hours ago |
|
» IP ban glitch?AverageRiceFan - Apr 21 |
2 |
by hich4n_
»»
Yesterday, 12:15 PM |
|
» ishinashi has 300 alt accounts and counting ( 1 2 3 )deg - Jun 16, 2023 |
127 |
by Spunkert
»»
Yesterday, 6:05 AM |