Modified "rules" proposal

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 12 Mar 2008 18:18

MODIFIED "RULES" PROPOSAL:
(Posted in Kicking Circle because surely it has more views than Discussion)
Modified needs clear-cut rules and guidelines. Period.
Here are some rough ideas of what I think the limitations should include. Please read and respond and give your own feedback and suggestions/ideas/concerns/etc...

-no derogatory language/discrimination
(race, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities, etc)
-maybe even banning of "jestful use" is necessary -- is "nigger" ever appropriate? I don't really believe so.
-sexual orientation = use of terms like, "fag"; any use of "gay" other than in the context of genuine, non-jestful dicussion or mention -- saying something or someone is gay is inappropriate because it is demeaning, likewise using terms hatefully or to "make fun" is wrong.
-disabilities = use of terms like, "retard". Basically the same rules as the others, but regarding a different sort of minority group or group subject of common disrespect.
-Etc, etc. Also includes racial slurs, or "put downs" based on race or background/heritage/tradition/whatever; also includes enforcement of sexual equality, and a zero-tolerance stance on discrimination based on gender, or any form of discrimination whatsoever.

-no explicitly sexual material (or illegal-substance/material) or discussion thereof
-it is a footbag forum after all, comprised mostly of minors
-boundaries should be reasonable and final say given to mods (perhaps by concensus if debate occurs?)
-no images that would be deemed "not safe for work" -- something that would be inappropriate to view while on the job. A borderline example would be pictures of women in swimsuits, or "scantily clad" posted with "derogatory" intent -- this should not be allowed, as, again, minors comprise the majority of users. Borderline issues can be subject to the concensus of the mod staff?
-What "movie rating" label should be given to Modified? PG-13? Whatever the concensus is on this, materials and content should be posted and limited accordingly.
-discussion of sexual acts is explicit; I think the use of words and phrases like, "blow job" are inappropriate on an all-ages forum.
-Use of certain words should be acceptable, such as, "sex" if used in a mature manner. It may seem uptight to have to mention that, but it would be best to "clear-cut" the "rules" as ccurately as possible. As situations and contentions arise, rules can be adjusted and discussed among the mods/admin.
-border-line matters such as comments along the lines of, "That footbag player is so hot!" should be subject to the discretion of mods given the context. If a user is offended by such a comment and no mod action is taken, the matter might be best handled if privately brought to the attention of the mods?

-no personal attacks
-this must somehow apply to PMs and Footblogs as well (if extreme circumstances arise)
-examples of a personal attack:
-name calling (outside of jest? -- mods' discretion)
-threats (even in "obvious" jest, this can be inappropriate); this should apply to footblogs (no body should feel threatened in their own blog -- or anyone else's for that matter...?)

GENERAL NOTES:
-should footblogs be exempt from most rules? (I lean towards yes (freedom of speech), unless there is a really blatant blog that focuses way too much on items against the "rules")
-if any user feels in any way offended or discriminated against, that user has the right to take it up with the mods to come to agreement on potential adjustment of the "rules".
-if anyone feels a mod is abusing their power, or whatever, they had the right to contact the other mods to bring up the issue(s).
-rules should be enforced and punishment accordingly dished out. This has to be absolutely finite. Users must know what the repercussions are for not abiding by the "rules". There should be some sort of warning system; maybe a temporary ban system; and a permanent ban system.
-There should also be a crack-down on doubles of user accounts (admin can check suspicious user IPs, etc)
-Users should have some say in the "rules" somehow... like mods eventually come up with a more finalized proposition, and users submit opinions thereof.
-Real names required in signature??

-Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. This is rough and everyone should add their own points/feelings/opinions/whatever. Modified should be about footbag and reflect the friendly, accepting nature of the footbag community -- "crap" has got to go.

dp · Post by dp » 12 Mar 2008 18:28

I think a handful of bad users are the biggest problem, not a couple of questionable threads in the discussion forum.

Also, you keep saying all ages forum, but I'm pretty sure everyone is at least 14, it's not like we have 8 year olds running around this place.

Just something to think about.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 12 Mar 2008 18:38

While I think this is great - what would probably be better is if we stuck with one thing at a time and at the moment it seems the pornographic material rule is the focus of discussion elsewhere in the forum.

Moreover I feel that all of the "proposals" you make above are already in the existing rules.

Here are the current rules http://www.modified.in/footbag/viewtopi ... 29&start=0

I'll quote from them in response to each of your proposals.

While coarse language is permitted derogatory remarks regarding religion, race, nationality, gender, sexuality and physical/mental disability will not be tolerated. Such remarks will be edited or deleted.

What has changed since the last discussion of the derogatory language rule? You'll also note derogatory use of race/gender/sex orientation/diasability is not alowed. Perhaps the enforcement of this rule or lack thereof is the problem - I'd suggest that users PM a mod with a link to any instance where this rule may be broken as soon as they notice it and that way we won't miss it.

-Posting pornographic material and/or links is unacceptable and mods will remove such material from posts or remove the entire thread if necessary

and

- There may be no direct references to methods of obtaining drugs illegally. Any post containing such references will be edited or deleted.

Again it seems to me this is not a problem with a poorly worded or non existent rule but a matter of enfovement. With regard to the drug rule that has been worded very carefully in line with the attitudes expressed in the last discussion and since then I think it has been well enforced.

-Threats of violence will not be tolerated, such threats will be deleted.

Again we already have the rule and I think its been enfoced within reason, perhaps we have missed the odd threat and again I'd suggest users pm a mod immediately should they feel that this rule may have been broken in a post.

- Some sections of the forum have their own specific additions and exceptions to these guidelines, in such cases details will be provided within that section, in the form of a sticky entitled "How This Section Works".

It seems to me that the rules exist - perhaps enforcement is the issue - perhaps we need another mod. Part of the problem is that three of the four mods are on Australian/European time, and only one is on Nth American time - so there is a delay before things get seen leave alone dealt with. Another Nth American mod might help fix this.

Also I have added the rules to the Getting Started forum - it is stickied at the top - I have been meaning to do it for ages.

Guest_1 · Post by **Guest_1** » 12 Mar 2008 22:07

Pirate Man wrote:I think a handful of bad users are the biggest problem, not a couple of questionable threads in the discussion forum.

So it wouldn't really affect anyone else? Great. Solves the problem and doesn't affect the real contributers at all

LEGOMAN · Post by **LEGOMAN** » 13 Mar 2008 09:30

i dont think mods or admins really do anything for bad users at all. remember the user shaggster? he fucking tried to rip off people on this forum more then once and doesnt get fucking banned? why the fuck should i behave on this forum if neither mods or admins arent going to do shit about me and the other annoying users?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 13 Mar 2008 09:55

The mods and admins shouldn't have to do anything about you acting out. You lack the ability to show proper respect in public, to your peers, elders, and to your mentors. You lack to foresight to see that by being an ass online, the quality of your real life experience will also be lessened. Nobody really cares what you do. Most of us have the ability to glaze over crap that isn't worth taking the time to read. I barely notice you and several other people on this forum This whole situation boils down to a few jackass kids who can't behave in public that are acting out for attention, and a few I'm holier than thou, I must regulate the situation douche bags that are giving it to them.

mc · Post by mc » 13 Mar 2008 12:06

Damn, cameron, you seemed a little quiet around here for a while, but you're dropping some real jewels on this censorship issue!

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 13 Mar 2008 16:24

Why not create a jail section, and instead of banning people, just limit their ability to post to the jail. They still get to spout off online, and we don't have to see it ?

The jail can even be hidden by default, and good users would have to go out of their way to visit the jail by enabling the section in their preferences !

LEGOMAN · Post by **LEGOMAN** » 13 Mar 2008 16:32

Tsiangkun wrote:The mods and admins shouldn't have to do anything about you acting out. You lack the ability to show proper respect in public, to your peers, elders, and to your mentors. You lack to foresight to see that by being an ass online, the quality of your real life experience will also be lessened. Nobody really cares what you do. Most of us have the ability to glaze over crap that isn't worth taking the time to read. I barely notice you and several other people on this forum This whole situation boils down to a few jackass kids who can't behave in public that are acting out for attention, and a few I'm holier than thou, I must regulate the situation douche bags that are giving it to them.

then whats the point of having mods on this fourm? we would only need 1 really active admin on this forum to weed out the shit topics that i create.

and you consider this a public place? i wouldnt act this way out in the real world. everyone knows that completely different in real life then on these fucking forums.

so before you start to get really fucking serious on a hacky fucking sack forum, in a sub section that shouldnt even be on this fucking this fourm stop and remember this isnt real fucking life. if you want it to be a pure footbag forum then try and get these sub sections deleted.

and if you dont like the shit i post then use the fucking ignore button and block me so you dont have to read my shit. im going to be doing the same.

hacksterbator · Post by **hacksterbator** » 13 Mar 2008 16:59

LEGOMAN wrote:and if you dont like the shit i post then use the fucking ignore button and block me so you dont have to read my shit.

i've never felt the need to ignore a friend on here before, but i guess there's a first time for every thing.

full nelson · Post by **full nelson** » 13 Mar 2008 17:01

You wouldn't act this way in the real world - Good because I don't know how you are in real life. So maybe you aren't an asshole, but you sure have fooled me.

If you can't follow Cameron's point, I think it proves it.

LEGOMAN · Post by **LEGOMAN** » 13 Mar 2008 17:56

im glad you guys would block me on here even if you consider me a friend on here. i guess i prove a point mods dont do anything for any type of users no matter what they do. ive spammed this forum like no other and you know what happens to me? NOTHING. on any other type of modded forum i would of been banned months ago.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 13 Mar 2008 18:14

Footbag players are some of the kindest and most accepting people on the planet. We are aware of how disturbing and disrespectful your spamming has been, yet you can't grasp how cool the modified forum is for not having you banned. We don't really get down with the strong handed moderation here, and we hope that one day you will come to realize that where other forums have told you to take your stuff and leave, we still hope that you will just chill out and enjoy what the forum is.

Um, I guess car analogies are always popular.

Your the guy who got kicked out of his friends car and is walking in the rain, and modified is the bus that stops and picks ya up. We got the old folks, the crying babies, the dirty filthy hippies, the drunks, and all whole lot of good people. The mods are like the driver. They keep the bus on the road, and make sure people get on and off safely, but most certainly aren't police. Riding the bus isn't always fun, but sometimes it is a blast, and it almost always beats time alone walking in the rain after getting kicked out of your friends car.

mc · Post by mc » 13 Mar 2008 18:54

So let me get this straight.

You actively and consciously act in offensive ways to make the point that nothing will be done about it, and no one will fix it, and you will get to do whatever you want, and because someone is able to do that unopposed,

you think modified sucks.

Then, we find ourselves at today. You're getting a pretty direct response to your offensive actions, seemingly refuting your claim that modified sucks because no one will do anything about it.

Yet you're not happy that your point has been refuted. Despite the fact that things are happening that seem to indicate the opposite of "modified sucks", you're angry and you don't want anyone criticizing you and now you're getting really nasty and swearing a lot.

You are getting the response that you should be getting. If your whole point is that it's high time someone got pissed at you, you've made your point, and now people are pissed at you. And you think the people who are pissed at you are in the wrong?

Kyle, you are a sweet kid in real life. I got some bad news for you.

**I DIRECTLY associate the kyle I know online with the kyle I know in real life.**

you are hurting my opinion of real life kyle by being unreasonable and offensive as online kyle. Sorry, buddy. you own your words, and just because you think you're doing it to make a point doesn't make it any less obnoxious.

How is it that you can care nothing for anyone else's opinion? How can you reasonably look at yourself and say, "I am right and righteous and everyone else is crazy or wrong or both"?

If you care about the opinions of your friends, peers, and community members, lay off. There's a long way to go before online kyle makes me unable to stand real life kyle, but it's not like that kind of thing hasn't happened before.

being that you're a talented and accomplished footbagger at a young age, I'd think you'd take pride in the community and want to represent it well with positivity, not act to make it worse just to prove a point.

King Monkey · Post by **King Monkey** » 14 Mar 2008 09:54

Can we please tone down the language in this discussion?

EDIT: So, Kyle, is what you are getting at through this whole thing, is that the Moderation staff should have banned you long ago, for 'acting like a dickhead' on this forum? Or were there specific examples where you have acted in a racist/homophobic/pornographic/violent manner, and these are the instances you believe deserved your banning?

Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately in this case) there is no rule that says one cant be a dickhead on Modified. The banned list would be about as long as a piece of string by now i imagine, if that were the case.

crazylegs32 · Post by **crazylegs32** » 17 Mar 2008 19:24

Is the term retard deemed offensive when it is used to describe actual retarded people? Retarded people have an IQ below 70 and aren't offended by the term.

Krafty · Post by **Krafty** » 17 Mar 2008 20:27

crazylegs32 wrote:Is the term retard deemed offensive when it is used to describe actual retarded people? Retarded people have an IQ below 70 and aren't offended by the term.

How do you know they're not offended?

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 17 Mar 2008 20:40

It isn't an issue of whether or not they're offended, it's whether or not they have a right to be offended. It's like a "black" person getting upset when someone uses the term, when all it is is a simpler way to say person of Subsuharan ancestry. Retard is just a simpler way of saying someone afflicted with retardation. Queer is just a simpler way of saying someone who likes men.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 17 Mar 2008 22:05

Krafty wrote:
crazylegs32 wrote:Is the term retard deemed offensive when it is used to describe actual retarded people? Retarded people have an IQ below 70 and aren't offended by the term.
How do you know they're not offended?

ever met crazylegs32 ?

quadgun · Post by **quadgun** » 17 Mar 2008 22:18

ZING!