Allow me to explain some things here...

• Cynic wrote on 2012-03-06 23:26
  I'm guessing the issue about letting people speak publicly is the exact same reason we have new Staff in the first place; most of us here can't handle a proper discussion of conflicting opinions without turning into rude brats who bicker instead of discuss.
  
  If we didn't need tough love, they wouldn't have hired the new Staff. I'm pretty sure we can all agree things have been getting out of hand, unless you guys are feigning ignorance toward it or perhaps don't care because you were one of the bad eggs yourself.
  I'm probably one of the prime examples of the douchebags here, yet even I agree that we need to clean things up. People will always have strong opinions, but it's up to us to learn how to control them and keep them in line. This isn't turning into a "omg nobody speak out of line don't say this don't say that don't speak ill about the Staff", it's turning into a "speak nicely or don't speak at all" kind of thing. Which honestly.. is what we really need. And if I can admit to that, I'm pretty sure most of you can as-well.
  
  If you have an issue with a Staff member, discuss it with them or a higher up. Or go ahead-- try and make a thread and see how people end up discussing it. I'm pretty damn sure you'll see just why we need the Staff to buckle down so much on us.
  Seriously. Iunno what's so hard to comprehend about that.
• Milk wrote on 2012-03-06 23:50
  I'll repeat this again Dictatornation.
  
  Someones opinions should be censored just for disagreeing with someone in specific.
  
  And we shouldn't be forced to shut up instead of posting something that would raise an argument.
  
  People don't seem to realise that arguments & people disagreeing with each other is a norm in almost any situation.
  
  Yes we understand fully that we can always report something that we find offensive by hitting the report button but asking us to just shut up & stay quite while we wait for an admin to make the choice for us is not how a community works.
• Hannah's Lover wrote on 2012-03-06 23:59

  Quote from The Hero Luka;798151:

  No. I have a problem with #4.
  
  Being able to discuss a topic gives way for a more collaborated, organized, edited idea to form. If someone has a problem with something the staff are doing, or if they have beef with some rule, they should be allowed to bring it into question in front of everyone else without having their idea or message be censored.
  
  It also allows a much wider audience to place their input on a particular manner. Osayidan is one person, and the staff individually make up a very small number of opinions compared to everyone using the website as a whole. What he may not agree with, many others might, which in turn would open his eyes to what would be a demand by the majority. With multiple people making input on an idea, its easier to contribute additional supporting arguments and points that one person normally would not have been able to come up with by themself.
  
  We're a community forum, and as a community we should express ourselves together. That is the power the internet has given us, and its with that power that the world has turned in a new direction. If we have a problem with a new government bill, should we not tell others about it, or discuss it, and only send a letter to the Governor or President?
  
  I also have a problem with #1, mainly in that its a serious paradox of sorts, but I have no real solid argument against it so I'll just grumble in the corner and whittle my thumb and hope it eventually gets modified.

  
  this
  but not flaming like
  
  "______ IS AN IDIOT AND SHOULD BE DEMOTED"
• Scarlet wrote on 2012-03-06 23:59

  Quote from Milk;798567:

  I'll repeat this again Dictatornation.
  
  Someones opinions should be censored just for disagreeing with someone in specific.
  
  And we shouldn't be forced to shut up instead of posting something that would raise an argument.
  
  People don't seem to realise that arguments & people disagreeing with each other is a norm in almost any situation.
  
  Yes we understand fully that we can always report something that we find offensive by hitting the report button but asking us to just shut up & stay quite while we wait for an admin to make the choice for us is not how a community works.

  
  
  [FONT="Times New Roman"]Rule #4 might be misinterpreted; insults seem to be the main problem.[/FONT]
  
  

  Quote from TA;798131:

  Alright. So, there are a few reasons we added this rule. The first being that criticizing a member of staff is generally taken to a derogatory level, and although concerns may be valid, staff are forum members too and insulting other members of the community is a no-no and not the kind of behavior that should be occurring, for the same reason that flaming other members is disallowed.
  
  As for questioning staff actions, this is a problem because it circumvent the staff's authority and creates meaningless drama. If an explanation is desired, privately messaging a staff member is just as effective as posting about it somewhere in the forum. But one will create a massive uproar and a ton of drama, while the other will not. The answer will not change just because you create hell for the staff. All that does is cause more work for us, which means because we're dealing with your uprising, we're dealing less with posts that really need our attention.
  
  The biggest problems with these things is not so much that people are questioning the staff's authority. The biggest problem is that the vast majority of people get flustered and are incapable of remaining civil and instead resort to derogatories and insults, with very negative near (or fully) flame-like tones.
  
  You have to understand, staff members are members of this community as well. Just because they have special responsibilities never makes it okay to insult them.
  
  Unfortunately since most people can't seem to control themselves and think that insulting staff is A-Okay just because they're staff, we can't allow it. Doing so would only result in punishment for flaming/insulting of a member due to people's inability to make constructive civil posts on this type of subject. Then that only enrages them more, and harsher action has to take place. To simply disallow it, curbs having to punish our members for the fervent hate of any particular staff member or action (which regardless of what we say, is going to happen), so if it can be in a private message rather than openly insulting a member, and in creating an entire thread for the purpose of insulting said member, then we can avoid a bunch of senseless drama and needless punishment.
  
  The last thing you need when you're upset about a punishment is to be punished yourself. So, this rule is for the best. Please follow it, and hopefully we can still resolve your concerns while protecting you from yourself.

• Cucurbita wrote on 2012-03-07 00:06

  Quote from Hannah's Lover;798570:

  this
  but not flaming like
  
  "______ IS AN IDIOT AND SHOULD BE DEMOTED"

  
  
  Which should actually just refer back to the original "no flaming" rule and rid of rule #4 altogether.
  
  Because if we have rules specifically backing the staff, then the "staff discretion" becomes warped.
  
  I wouldn't be able to have open public discussions like "I think _____ ill fit to be a staff member because...", and again, referring back to my original post as to why such a discussion should be allowed to be held in public rather than strictly in PM.
• Bride wrote on 2012-03-07 00:08

  Quote from The Hero Luka;798579:

  Which should actually just refer back to the original "no flaming" rule and rid of rule #4 altogether.
  
  Because if we have rules specifically backing the staff, then the "staff discretion" becomes warped.
  
  I wouldn't be able to have open public discussions like "I think _____ ill fit to be a staff member because...", and again, referring back to my original post as to why such a discussion should be allowed to be held in public rather than strictly in PM.

  
  we already can't have open discussions like that. tatsu's thread yesterday addressing TA's becoming an admin was deleted within a few minutes
• Cucurbita wrote on 2012-03-07 00:09

  Quote from Bride;798583:

  we already can't have open discussions like that. tatsu's thread yesterday addressing TA's becoming an admin was deleted within a few minutes

  
  
  Gross censorship is gross.
• Milk wrote on 2012-03-07 00:12

  Quote from The Hero Luka;798585:

  Gross censorship is gross.

  
  
  Im honestly really upset about it.
  
  There should be no reason for things like that to be deleted unless she was insulting her in a vulgar & disrespectful way.
• Scarlet wrote on 2012-03-07 00:13

  Quote from Milk;798591:

  Im honestly really upset about it.
  
  There should be no reason for things like that to be deleted unless she was insulting her in a vulgar & disrespectful way.

  
  
  [FONT="Times New Roman"]Since I wasn't here for whatever this disagreement, could you tell me in a PM?[/FONT]
• TA wrote on 2012-03-07 00:42

  Quote from The Hero Luka;798579:

  I wouldn't be able to have open public discussions like "I think _____ ill fit to be a staff member because...", and again, referring back to my original post as to why such a discussion should be allowed to be held in public rather than strictly in PM.

  
  
  This is exactly the kind of thing you cannot do.
  
  

  Quote from Hannah's Lover;798570:

  this
  but not flaming like
  
  "______ IS AN IDIOT AND SHOULD BE DEMOTED"

  
  
  This, is unfortunately why this rule is in place.
  
  We tell people not to do this, but I don't think people even grasp that this is exactly what they do.
  
  In retrospect, you should consider it the same as making a thread like "I think ___ should be banned because..."
  
  You just don't do that.
  
  If it was a normal member could you make a thread (which is going to be construed to openly bash them) that says something like "____ is the reason this community is so horrible and they should be removed" - do you even remotely think this would be even within the realm of acceptability? These types of things, they're kept private for a reason. There's a reason we tell people to report posts and privately message staff members with problems of other members, and it's the same reason we do so now for the staff as well. Despite common sense tending to generally work for members, it has not worked whatsoever for staff.
  
  Now what you can do, is make a thread in Mabination Discussion that says "I don't agree with X policy because Y," and remain civil and leave specific moderators or specific moderator actions and/or decisions out of it, then this is perfectly acceptable and encouraged.
  
  This rule isn't to censor to the community. It's to directly address the worst behavior people seem to have when they attempt to do so, and sadly do not even realize they do.
  
  It is something that should have been common sense, but since common sense has failed us horribly, we needed to actually write it down and make it clear that it is not an appropriate behavior.
  
  When you start out a post like "(insert-name-here) is part of the reason the community took a turn for the worse in the first place" and can't possibly fathom what could have possibly been wrong, something is terribly wrong here.
  
  Rather than a staff member, let's plug in a normal member name. What kind of reaction do you think this would bring? How do you think that member would react? How do you think their friends would react?
  
  Statements like this, they are not helpful at all. They are not constructive. They only serve as negativity and to spur on drama. It is for this reason that names and specific actions need to be left out of public discussions, and remain in private for the administration to deal with. That's not to say that discussions can't take place. It's to say that we're outlining what we no longer want to see in them.
  
  If you want to make a discussion, follow these easy guidelines and keep it civil and constructive. A bunch of negativity doesn't help anyone and only serves to demotivate the staff and create a massive amount of undue drama that could otherwise be avoided and a healthy discussion could have taken place in its stead.
• Milk wrote on 2012-03-07 00:43

  Quote from Scarlet;798594:

  [FONT="Times New Roman"]Since I wasn't here for whatever this disagreement, could you tell me in a PM?[/FONT]

  
  
  It was a long post I don't recall the details. Like bride said. It was deleted too quickly.
• Kenero wrote on 2012-03-07 01:17

  Quote from The Hero Luka;798533:

  If anything, I voted for you.

  
  
  Thanks for the thought. XD
  
  Though personally, I believe that a forum mod should educate, guide, and protect the people, rather than banning and setting up strange rules. Do the people or the rules come first?
  
  It comes down to it: Should I live my term as a mod through strict rules, forced respect, and then get softer or should I be a mod who sees the that the best rules are ones that are bendable and adjust to the situation, rather than adhering to a strict rule code immediately.
  
  I believe that a mod section should be for the people in that as a mod, you shouldn't demand respect but earn respect of the people. The slight difference between dictatorship and strict rules is the feelings of brotherhood, a sense of unity... to say it simply, it is love! Yes, as corny as it sounds, it is love! Love for the community, love for your fellow man/woman, and the ability to love oneself in order to love others.
  
  I believe that the rules should stay the way they are, but they should be more lax, in that they should be bendable according to the situation, rather than being ruler strict. By that I mean, you should be able to discern someone who appears misunderstood by others because of his personality vs. someone who is a pure troll. I believe that you should understand a person who breaks the rules and come up whether this is just a faucet of his personality (like seeming condescending when in truth, the original poster doesn't see it like that), a slip-up now and then (I believe small slip-ups should just be overlooked), or pure trolls (in which immediate actions must be taken). Of course, it requires personal skills to determine that but I believe the new staff selected have that ability.
  
  Of course, you should also have the ability to love your members enough not only to give them some stretching room but also deal appropriate punishment and explanation. If said person doesn't get it, then it is their fault and not yours. You did your best to explain the rules and you gave them the love to understand but part of that life is handing out the necessary punishment (which sounds contradictory but handing out discipline for very bad actions is part of love).
  
  I advise everyone to give the new staff and rules grace period to let them adjust to their new power and make any changes of the rules.
  
  Personally I will give the staff 40 days, starting from yesterday before I make an opinion of how things are working out.
  
  I wish the staff and TA the best they can work with and hope that you exceed everyone's expectations but most of all, exceed your own expectations, which is the most important of all. =)
• whocares8128 wrote on 2012-03-07 04:01

  Quote from Cucufag;798151:

  I also have a problem with #1, mainly in that its a serious paradox of sorts, but I have no real solid argument against it so I'll just grumble in the corner and whittle my thumb and hope it eventually gets modified.

  
  
  I don't see it as a paradox. To me, there's a difference between quoting derogatory terms abstractly and actually using them in a derogatory manner. The latter case is why I believe the rule exists.
  
  Only when taken literally does the rule violate itself.
• Tatsu wrote on 2012-03-07 05:16

  Quote from Bride;798583:

  we already can't have open discussions like that. tatsu's thread yesterday addressing TA's becoming an admin was deleted within a few minutes

  
  
  Mind you, my post wasn't to be taken seriously. It did take me quite an effort to try and write that though, since I didn't wholly agree with it.
  
  I was kinda upset that I didn't get a warning or was infracted after it was deleted though.
• Oizen wrote on 2012-03-07 05:39
  Only thing I hate is the stereotypical #4 rule.
  
  The "if we fuck up bad, you can't talk about or acknowledge it" clause. Which 9/10 times leads to mods getting away with everything, trolling the community, and getting off easy for it.
  
  I dunno, there needs to be a way to publicly voice that stuff. But oh well.